im a chavy boy racer

[Wideboy]

this morning i had a letter drop through my door informing me that a vehicle register to me has come to the attention of the police in the last 12 months

my vehicle has been reported doing one of the following or a combination (i quote with letter in hand);


Careless and inconsiderate driving may include :-

Driving through puddles to splash members of the public
Accelerating at speed and the use of excess speed
wheel spinning
driving along the pavement (i do that alot but they keep jumping out teh way at the last min :()

Alarm, distress or annoyance may be caused by

Loud music (my car is has no sub :confused:)
revving engines and excessive exhaust noise ( i didnt know a standard 1.4 was such a beast)
unnecessary use of the horn
repeatedly dricing through the same location
throwing objects from the vehicle

no i opened the letter and pretty much laughed straight away, there is a leaflet with it basically warning me about chaved up cars ect..... now my car is

a) complete 100% standard, except a cd player
B) not at all fast lol
C) complete mint and about as far from a chavs car as you could get

think i may go down there and pursue it further :lol:

[Magnum]

:confused: Have you actually been punished for those naughty offences? Or is it just an empty threat?

[Wideboy]

ah i think i know who this is, that old cnut across the road, he hates my bike, well looks as though im going to have to do it more

[Wideboy]

:confused: Have you actually been punished for those naughty offences? Or is it just an empty threat?


empty threat, makes me laugh because even on my bike im not a complete pr!ck, well not until im out of sight

[the_lone_wolf]

repeatedly driving through the same location

i live in a cul-de-sac, and drive up and down it every day to get to work and back, i must be due one of these S.59 warnings then:rolleyes:

[Wideboy]

i live in a cul-de-sac, and drive up and down it every day to get to work and back, i must be due one of these S.59 warnings then:rolleyes:

yeah you got it, thats the letter :lol:

its warning me that my vehicle could be seized

[Luckypants]

I think you should go down there and find out EXACTLY what it is you have supposed to have done. IMO that is a threatening letter and they need to be taken to task over it. If it is a neighbour, the Police should have corroborated his story before sending any letter.

[Frank]

is it because you avoid the bends and just ride up and down the straights

[plowsie]

I was gonna pursue my Section 59, it was fair to me, and it was a copper that reported me. I won't be having it if he reports me again though.

[Frank]

so ,they can send out a threatening letter ,without showing you the proof.
I d be on my way down to the station now.

[Wideboy]

i cant go down until tomorrow, busy today

[Kate Moss]

If its an official complaint there will be times and dayes of when/where these incidents were supposed to have occured.
Get down there and question it.

[Rai86]

lmao...you not having a great year are ya

Why dont you ask one of the coppers on here if they are actually able to pursue it futher....

[Wideboy]

well im on the sicky and now a reckless lout, im officially on my way to becoming scum :D

[plowsie]

There will be times that the have been reported etc. I questioned mine, unofficially, I was reported popping wheelies down the main road by my house at 7pm on a Friday night, quite likely, I was going out for a ride with 2mths.

[Graciepants]

your car doesnt look like this does it?
http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo300/graciepants_2008/Rearview.jpg


driving down the pavement?!

[gruntygiggles]

Get down the police station and tell them you've recieved a threatening letter from them, you are sure it must be a mistake and would like to have it sorted out please....be nice and polite.

When someone says they have recieved complaints detailing your driving to include some of the examples listed, tell them that you were not aware that the police could send threatening letters on a member of the publics say so and ask them if they have any evidence to support the complainants claims. Again, be polite, but say that you feel victimised by an older neighbour despite being a law abiding young man with a factory standard, 1.4 ltr compact car who HAS to repeatedly drive through the same location in order to get to and from home or work and that you take offense to recieving such a letter.

This is just a case of doing something to shut someone up. They probably keep getting calls from someone in the street that doesn't like bikes or whatever and so has got a grudge against you. They probably just wanted to stop getting phonecalls from that person and so sent a letter to show that they were taking his complaints seriously. Problem is......they've been a little foolish.

Is it even a real letter? Could it have been faked by the person with the problem as I'm sure the police would at least quote the registration of the vehicle in the letter.

Sounds well dodgy to me, so get down your local station and if you want, you can ask for them to get a duty solicitor to come and advise you....at their cost!

Good luck and keep laughing. So many funny things on the forum today!!!

[plowsie]

Be aware if you go and see them and complain though, they will be on you like a hawk waiting for your next f*** up mate.

[gruntygiggles]

Be aware if you go and see them and complain though, they will be on you like a hawk waiting for your next f*** up mate.

Only if he actually is being that bad! Personally, I'd rather go down, query it, find out the details and take copies of paperwork and file it. Keep a log of all conversations and names etc and if you find you're being targeted get a solicitor and have them all for harrassment!

PM Ed and see what he thinks!

[Bluepete]

Be aware if you go and see them and complain though, they will be on you like a hawk waiting for your next f*** up mate.


No "they" won't.

[plowsie]

Only if he actually is being that bad! Personally, I'd rather go down, query it, find out the details and take copies of paperwork and file it. Keep a log of all conversations and names etc and if you find you're being targeted get a solicitor and have them all for harrassment!

PM Ed and see what he thinks!
I sought advice for mine when it come through, I was going to contest it, the advice I received was...what if they are holding the picture/video card up their sleeve (unlikely, but not unknown), if not and they do let you off, they will be waiting for you in the same place all the time to catch you out.

Without aiming too much offence to Pete etc, but remember, this is the Police, traffic offences are high priorities, theft, robberies, assault take them a couple of days to be bothered around by me. Soon onto you with a traffic offence.

Hell yeah, if I received a second one for someone just seeing me and reporting it, I will be losing my licence and vehicle anyway, so I will contest it whatever happens. I want proof if I ever get caught for the second time.

I won't be getting caught again though, I ain't that stupid to act a tw*t around housing estates.

WB, is it an official Section 59?

[jumjum_0214]

Widepants.

My 2p worth......

1)You won't get anywhere by complaining, but if you genuinely feel this is a mistake o and speak to the local Police but...........BE POLITE.

2)If you do speak to them they wont be waiting for you to mess up later on. They have bigger fish to fry.

3)The S59 Warning under the Police reform act will be recorded on PNC for 12 months, if you get pulled again for being naughty in the next 12 months on bike or in car you will more than likely have your car/bike seized there and then as it is being used in an anti-social manner.

4) Im NOT having a dig at you here.

[gruntygiggles]

Widepants.

My 2p worth......

1)You won't get anywhere by complaining, but if you genuinely feel this is a mistake o and speak to the local Police but...........BE POLITE.

2)If you do speak to them they wont be waiting for you to mess up later on. They have bigger fish to fry.

3)The S59 Warning under the Police reform act will be recorded on PNC for 12 months, if you get pulled again for being naughty in the next 12 months on bike or in car you will more than likely have your car/bike seized there and then as it is being used in an anti-social manner.

4) Im NOT having a dig at you here.


Exactly the reason to go and speak to them....be polite, but ask for specifics as you are not aware that you have been doing anything wrong and the letter you have recieved is extremely vague.

Wideboy....if you're worried, just call a few solicitors and you'll find a legal aid one that will go with you and help you if you feel you need it and probably not a bad idea. The police HAVE to disclose any evidence that they have against you, so it is better to know what it is and if needed, amend your driving/riding to suit.

From what you say, the letter doesn't specify that it's your car, so it could be that you have been spotted on the bike doing things that someone has taken a dislike to. It's not unheard of for people to exaggerate complaints to get something done and if the police have no evidence to support the complainant........you can contest it I am sure.

Legal advice is the way to go though.

[Bluepete]

I'd like to see the full transcript of the letter. Is it on the local Constabulary headed paper?

Oh, and as to why traffic offences are dealt with quickly; most traffic cops are experienced, time served lads and lasses. We know how to do the job properly. Also, (Very quick Googling, please feel free to pick and quote a different set of stats.) The total number of murders reported in one year, 2007, was around 760. Fatalities on the road accounted for more than 3000 lives in the same period. Now, what's more important, road safety or Mrs Miggins prize hanging basket going missing? Most Cops who respond to burglaries, thefts etc are new, inexperienced and drastically overworked with supervisors ragging them at the station and people complaining that they had to wait for someone to come and see them.

I've done both jobs, so I feel able to comment.

Pete

[plowsie]

Clears it up for me then Pete. Cheers :)

[the_lone_wolf]

Without wanting to start a daily mail thread, is non-response to a letter like this considered to be an admission of guilt?

I know someone down here (sensible middle aged rider) who was given a S.59 for accelerating away from a set of traffic lights faster than the cars behind him, not full throttle, perfectly safe, standard exhausts, well within the speed limit, front wheel firmly on the ground;) - it was claimed that it was likely to cause alarm to members of the public:rolleyes:

If the person I know had been on the receiving end of a malicious complaint previously he could have lost his bike (KTM Adventure, not some tarted up race rep or chavvy supermoto) all because of a lie and a jobsworth copper having a bad day

Don't get me wrong, having police able to deal with chav scum burning rubber in the McDonalds car park at 2am is great, but isn't a situation like this getting dangerously close to guilty until proven innocent? What kind of procedures are set up to prevent someone completely innocent ending up in a world of stupidity simply because the old fart knocker across the road doesn't like bikes

[gruntygiggles]

Without wanting to start a daily mail thread, is non-response to a letter like this considered to be an admission of guilt?

I know someone down here (sensible middle aged rider) who was given a S.59 for accelerating away from a set of traffic lights faster than the cars behind him, not full throttle, perfectly safe, standard exhausts, well within the speed limit, front wheel firmly on the ground;) - it was claimed that it was likely to cause alarm to members of the public:rolleyes:

If the person I know had been on the receiving end of a malicious complaint previously he could have lost his bike (KTM Adventure, not some tarted up race rep or chavvy supermoto) all because of a lie and a jobsworth copper having a bad day

Don't get me wrong, having police able to deal with chav scum burning rubber in the McDonalds car park at 2am is great, but isn't a situation like this getting dangerously close to guilty until proven innocent? What kind of procedures are set up to prevent someone completely innocent ending up in a world of stupidity simply because the old fart knocker across the road doesn't like bikes

+1...hence my advice to get any evidence, find out what the complaint was and guard against being made a victim of someone elses grudge!

[Bluepete]

Section 59 Police Reform Act; Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which—
(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_1) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).
(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).
(3) Those powers are—
(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).
(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section unless—
(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the the warning.
(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if—
(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;
(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or
(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.
(8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.
(9) In this section—

“driving” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_1);
“motor vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads; and
“private dwelling house” does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.


60 Retention etc. of vehicles seized under section 59
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—
(a) the removal and retention of motor vehicles seized under section 59; and
(b) the release or disposal of such motor vehicles.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision—
(a) for the giving of notice of the seizure of a motor vehicle under section 59 to a person who is the owner of that vehicle or who, in accordance with the regulations, appears to be its owner;
(b) for the procedure by which a person who claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle seized under section 59 may seek to have it released;
(c) for requiring the payment of fees, charges or costs in relation to the removal and retention of such a motor vehicle and to any application for its release;
(d) as to the circumstances in which a motor vehicle seized under section 59 may be disposed of;
(e) as to the destination—
(i) of any fees or charges payable in accordance with the regulations; and
(ii) of the proceeds (if any) arising from the disposal of a motor vehicle seized under section 59;
(f) for the delivery to a local authority, in circumstances prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations, of any motor vehicle seized under section 59.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that a person who would otherwise be liable to pay any fee or charge under the regulations shall not be liable to pay it if—
(a) the use by reference to which the motor vehicle in question was seized was not a use by him; and
(b) he did not know of the use of the vehicle in the manner which led to its seizure, had not consented to its use in that manner and could not, by the taking of reasonable steps, have prevented its use in that manner.
(4) In this section—

“local authority”—
(a)
in relation to England, means the council of a county, metropolitan district or London borough, the Common Council of the City of London or Transport for London; and

(b)
in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or county borough;



“motor vehicle” has the same meaning as in section 59.

If your vehicle is seized, you get it back by paying the fee and producing valid driving docs. Off-road bikes are rarely insured, I think a few companies have started doing third party liability policies. That's why most are crushed after being seized, 'cos the rider can rarely, if ever, produce insurance.

[plowsie]

Think off top of my head it was £105 to release it one the first day. Can't remember though.

[the_lone_wolf]

If your vehicle is seized, you get it back by paying the fee and producing valid driving docs. Off-road bikes are rarely insured, I think a few companies have started doing third party liability policies. That's why most are crushed after being seized, 'cos the rider can rarely, if ever, produce insurance.

so it's basically a fine **cough** tax **cough** and inconvenience?;)

if so then surely there'd be little point seizing a vehicle that's insured where the rider is legit? if the rider is going to spend money insuring it the costs of releasing it are pretty small compared to the price of a bike like ours

[Alpinestarhero]

it could be refering to your SV

[Sally]

What about the excessive music though?

[Alpinestarhero]

It seems to me that the letter is some sort of generic letter, along the lines of "a person has complained about you for one, or some, maybe all, of the following reasons"

[Luckypants]

Chapter and verse....

Another law where it is my word against a copper's. So if a copper takes a dislike to me he can seize my vehicle on any reason he cares to dream up?

Pete, if you can be bothered with my pettiness, what evidence do you need to actually seize a vehicle? If an officer seized (read steal) my £180K Ferrari because it was quick from the lights and so 'may alarm the public', you can be sure a very fancy priced lawyer would be their back for malfeasance in public office (or whatever I could get on them / the force / Chief constable)!

I really, really do not care for this type of legislation where the dealing officer is also judge and jury.

I really, really hate this 'because a copper says so' attitude to minor offences. If you cannot prove it, STFU and leave us alone.

Not meant as a poke at anybody in particular, least of all BP, but we all know about the major miscarriages of justice brought about by coppers 'being sure he is guilty but cannot prove it, so make up / lie about evidence' that have occurred in the recent (and not so recent) past. A coppers word against mine is NOT evidence.

[Bluepete]

Pete, if you can be bothered with my pettiness, what evidence do you need to actually seize a vehicle?

In all honesty Mike?


I dunno really. I've never done it. Our bikers use it on off road bikers on land they aren't allowed on, but that's it.

Pete

[Wideboy]

woooooowowowow!!!! lol :lol:

i don't want to complain to the plods, they're only doing what they have to do, in fact i find still the whole thing laughable i just walked in and looked at the letter and still laughed.

only reason i am going to go and pursue it is i actually have nothing better to do tomorrow :lol:

i just want to know which of my "vehicles" was reported and what my "vehicle" was doing

only thing i am guilty of is revving the bike up, but that was because i was at the time working on it and it was on my own land so me personally cant see a problem with that, if i find out that it was this certain person that complained then i will be doing something about it, he is not so clean himself :cool:

what i will be pi55ed about is if I've been reported in my car blearing my music out, driving on pavements ect, unlike most chavs my car is actually worth a fair wedge and the stereo isn't worth more than the car :rolleyes: so i reckon i would have had to be on something to have been doing that lol

believe it or not, im actually a responsible cage driver :D

[Stig]

If its an official complaint there will be times and dayes of when/where these incidents were supposed to have occured.
Get down there and question it.

Correct. We had antisocial neighbours who were rowdy, loud and drove round the estate dangerously. Due to the infrequency of the disturbances and the times it was often difficult to ring the police and catch them in the act. We were given a 'diary' to complete giving as much detail as we could for all disturbances. After a couple of months we handed this into the police which was used as 'evidence' of antisocial behaviour and the house was given an official warning over it.

The point being, it is possible for the police to use the 'evidence' of the public to issue such a letter.

[Wideboy]

ok done a bit of poking about and found out that i was reported in the Eastleigh borough so there can only be 2 places for this reporting

1 (bike). the old git across the road :rolleyes:, hasn't been on the road for a few weeks as its not really in the state to, neither am i lol

2 (car). i go to Eastleigh college which is renowned for being pikey chav land so there are loads of crappy cars that have been modified (bwahaha:rolleyes:). parking is only for 2 hours road-side then you have to move so all i can think of is that my car was reported as i was moving it and there was a few scrotes knocking about and they where driving their "hardcore modified beasts" at the same time, wouldnt have been the bike as it doesnt go to college for the sake of the pikey's. Basically i've being discriminated against because of my age

i showed it to my dad when he came in, he nearly spat his tea with laughter when he saw the pic of the chav'd saxo on it :lol: (i may scan it and put it up on here)

[the_lone_wolf]

i showed it to my dad when he came in, he nearly spat his tea with laughter when he saw the pic of the chav'd saxo on it :lol: (i may scan it and put it up on here)

please do!!!:mrgreen:

[Graciepants]

please do!!!:mrgreen:

+1
although it cant be as good as the caar i put up!

[Bluepete]

+1
although it cant be as good as the caar i put up!


Oh, I can beat that pathetic attempt!

Just have a look at these atrocities! (http://www.barryboys.co.uk/mx/)

Pete ;)

Innit!

[Wideboy]

+1
although it cant be as good as the caar i put up!


no that was a "machine"

[Graciepants]

no that was a "machine"
lol i was such a chav when i was 18

where is teh pic of this saxo then :P

[Wideboy]

hang on hang on, me and technology don't get on

[Wideboy]

yeah!!! done it :D, i r lernding gooder

poster3682 my car3681

i can see how they made the mistake, i mean just look at those bad a$$ rims, what a honey magnet

[Bluepete]

Where's the pic of the letter?

And is that Astra this one? (http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=123624&highlight=drift)

Pete ;)

[Wideboy]

since im a master of the technologies i did the letter aswell
36833684

[Bluepete]

I'd be giving PC Docker a call!

[dizzyblonde]

http://forums.sv650.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3681&d=1238010447 (http://forums.sv650.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3681&d=1238010447)

I now have visions of wIDEPANTs in 'sensible shoes' :p

[Wideboy]

im paying him a visit :)

[Wideboy]

I now have visions of wIDEPANTs in 'sensible shoes' :p

dont be fooled, tis a beast i tell thee!

i told you i have a sensible side, im not all as mad as my reputation makes out :p

[Bluepete]

Oh, and having a few speakers in the boot does not a chav make!

I have this in my Skoda Superb!

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk24/conker51/flitrap.gif

Low and loud!

Pete

[Wideboy]

Where's the pic of the letter?

And is that Astra this one? (http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=123624&highlight=drift)

Pete ;)

yeah, see!!!, she's a sideways beast!! but that was done on private road :p

[Wideboy]

Oh, and having a few speakers in the boot does not a chav make!

I have this in my Skoda Superb!

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk24/conker51/flitrap.gif

Low and loud!

Pete

PB is a chav!!!

i have uprated all my speakers, new head unit and a multichanger and they give a nice bassy sound, but i absolutely refuse to purchase a sub :p

[skeetly]

Surely there has to be more information that 'a vehicle registered to you' ?
If you've been reported and identified then the process starts with someone seeing you in the car checks the plate and reports you? Does this not mean that the letter would include the plate? Especially if its a cop whose seen you?
Its pretty grim if someione rings up the cops and says that so and so who lives at so and so drives like a maniac and can you send them a letter?
I mean; anyone could report anyone....

/baffled..

[Bluepete]

That letter isn't a reform act warning. It's a warning from a neighbourhood cop, or what used to be the "village bobby"

There has to be a paper trail from the point the reg is reported or seen "doing something wrong" through the PNC (where you have to enter why you are checking that reg plate and getting you name and address. It's auditable and I can guarentee a record will exist) to the decision to send out the letter.

Ask lots of questions, take notes, be specific. Don't be fobbed off. You won't find out who moaned about you, if it wasn't a cop or PCSO. Get an assurance that your vehicle hasn't had a warning put on PNC already. Above all, be polite and friendly. It's all anyone wants.

Pete

[Wideboy]

Get an assurance that your vehicle hasn't had a warning put on PNC already.



does that mean that when a plod car goes past my car sets off all sirens ect like on the programs?

[Bluepete]

If it has a sec. 59 against it, then yes.

[Wideboy]

If it has a sec. 59 against it, then yes.


bluddy hell, what's likely to happen if im pulled?

[Luckypants]

If it has a sec. 59 against it, then yes.

This seems like a damn good reason to get to the bottom of why that letter was sent and retracted if un-founded.

[Rog]

Now im no lawyer bit this sounds a lot like scare mongering to me.

From what I have read under Section 59 it is only a copper theat can issue the warning and have it placed on the PNC based on REAL evidence. He or she cannot simple place it on just because Mr Nosy Fuzzy B*?locks accross the road does not like you and makes a complaint.

The law has become so totalitarian lately I wouldnt like to bet my house on this, but if I got this letter I would definitely be down the local plod shop and asking for detailed information as to why this was issued.

We should all challenge laws like this and not just accept it as the way things are going.

[plowsie]

Get to the bottom of it WB, find out what exactly, and where exactly at what time. They should be able to give you that at least. Read Pete's post about the Section 59 act mate.

I got stopped by a PCSO a week after I received mine for starting my bike on a pavement and walking it to the road, he seemed to think I was using it on the public pavement, he was calling it in to see if I have a 3 warnings (Pete, is this right, can you get different stages?), anyway, it was found that I only had another one anyway so he was calling in a van to collect it.

A passing by van with some Police in it stopped and asked what the problem was. Told him, he laughed and told the PCSO to hold his horses. Still gave me a bit of a telling off. Off I went.

[Mej]

this morning i had a letter drop through my door informing me that a vehicle register to me has come to the attention of the police in the last 12 months

my vehicle has been reported doing one of the following or a combination (i quote with letter in hand);



no i opened the letter and pretty much laughed straight away, there is a leaflet with it basically warning me about chaved up cars ect..... now my car is

a) complete 100% standard, except a cd player
B) not at all fast lol
C) complete mint and about as far from a chavs car as you could get

think i may go down there and pursue it further :lol:

Im lmao, that is quality stuff.

[Wideboy]

haha that was most entertaining, i spoke to "the man" himself :rolleyes:

my car was reported by a member of the public driving erratically down chamberlayne road Eastleigh in October, somewhere i do frequent the watering hole there but on foot as you'd be a numpty to leave your car there, must have come out the pub bladdered and drove home or on drugs as i do so often :rolleyes:

a section 59 wasnt issued through lack of evidence it was just a warning letter and apparently 25 where issued so im part of a select few :) my car is not on the ANPR system and im 100% in the clear

i could resist having a bit of fun in the waiting area though, only about 6 of us in there none looked like hard nosed criminals, woman starting talking to me we got onto why we where there, i said i was reporting for bail but couldn't say what for, its surprisingly easy to intimidate people at the cop shop :lol:

im not really that intimidating am i? :(

[Rai86]

ha ha ha ah ha yeh well you make me nervous ;-)

Im glad your clean and not in trouble

[Frank]

lock him up

[Luckypants]

a section 59 wasnt issued through lack of evidence it was just a warning letter

That would SOOOO tick me off! Who do they think they are sending out threatening pseudo legal letters with no evidence except a member of the public reporting it? No proof, no action!

I understand that they have to take the public's concerns seriously and investigate complaints but where they have no evidence surely they should take no action? Sure they can make other officers aware of the complaint and so they keep a look out for evidence of the vehicle being driven badly, get the evidence and take action. That's called investigation and is what Police work is meant to be!

[Warthog]

i could resist having a bit of fun in the waiting area though, only about 6 of us in there none looked like hard nosed criminals, woman starting talking to me we got onto why we where there, i said i was reporting for bail but couldn't say what for, its surprisingly easy to intimidate people at the cop shop :lol:

Hehehehe nice one. It's often best to let their imagination take over :-P

[yorkie_chris]

The whole "sieze your bike" thing seems like a lot of total b0llocks. Yet another thing eroding the respect for the "justice" system in this country.

Old way:
Crime, caught, court + evidence = punishment

New way:
No crime committed, jobsworth rsehole, no court + no evidence = punishment


This is worrying to me, because I had my numberplate stolen a few months back, so if some tw4t is being silly with that plate on... then I could end up with my bike being siezed.. with no evidence required, no chance to give any defense, and surely no chance of recovering the £105 fine!
W4nkers!

[Wideboy]

i does seem that i have been bollocked for something that could have been quiet easy made up, i cant remember ever driving erratically on public roads (off road yes) let alone on that date and in that place

i've had 1 or 2 pull overs but only once was proven guilty and i was guilty i even admitted it, but all in all i keep my nose clean compared to some

[timwilky]

The whole "sieze your bike" thing seems like a lot of total b0llocks. Yet another thing eroding the respect for the "justice" system in this country.

Old way:
Crime, caught, court + evidence = punishment

New way:
No crime committed, jobsworth rsehole, no court + no evidence = punishment


This is worrying to me, because I had my numberplate stolen a few months back, so if some tw4t is being silly with that plate on... then I could end up with my bike being siezed.. with no evidence required, no chance to give any defense, and surely no chance of recovering the £105 fine!
W4nkers!

Work colleague got a NIP through the post, then they called to arrest him for dangerous driving. He was furious, denied everything and was waiting his day in court when they called to arrest him for leaving the scene of an accident. What accident, where's the damage to my car etc. went on for months. another NIP. pulled a couple of times as the car was red hot on the ANPR database

Then they called to tell his wife that he had been in yet another accident and was in hospital. No he is in bed with me, the car is in the garage.

Yes there were two cars in Manchester with the same number plates, finally plod believed them and arrested the right man.

[Rog]

Work colleague got a NIP through the post, then they called to arrest him for dangerous driving. He was furious, denied everything and was waiting his day in court when they called to arrest him for leaving the scene of an accident. What accident, where's the damage to my car etc. went on for months. another NIP. pulled a couple of times as the car was red hot on the ANPR database

Then they called to tell his wife that he had been in yet another accident and was in hospital. No he is in bed with me, the car is in the garage.

Yes there were two cars in Manchester with the same number plates, finally plod believed them and arrested the right man.


Ah the beautiful "computer says no" syndrome. I am quite suprised they didnt argue with her and tell her that her husband couldnt be in be next to her because the computer says so!

As for the letter sent to wideboy, what a complete waste of police time and therefore public money. So some one had to gather the complaints sit in a meeting and come up with the letter, decide on teh people to send it to, write the letter, get it typed and sent out. then of course you have the police time dealing with People going in and questioning the letter.

And I thought wasting police time was an offence. :-D