Visors! BEWARE!

No it doesn't, it depends on a law. I strongly suggest you check out the relevant legislation; if the visor is illegal by law then get a solicitor and sue the manufacturer.

If not then give the old bill a call, give them the legislation to look up, and ask for your visor back.

Your visor, to be deemed road legal should be fall into the British Standards 4110 category...i.e allow a minimum of 50% of the light through....I would check to see if this is the case...as if it is not BS4110 then it is not legal....

Another thing to think about is that the visor may say for day time use, but that means ideal weather conditions, not heavily overcast or peeing it down with rain, or other such poor conditions......

some more fat to chew on...

Regards

Originally Posted by andrewcharnley

If not, then you can sue the police for theft of property.

hmm, I would like to see that... :P

Quote:

"A person will be guilty of theft if he, dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it"

Make that fit Andrew.....

Originally Posted by andrewcharnley

How is it nonsense? The visor company have told him its legal to wear during the day?

My point (maybe a little too brief ) was that the police can seize anything they wish if they consider it evidence. You only get your say once you're in court.


.

"A person will be guilty of theft if he, dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it"

Not sure where you got that quote from, but if someone nicks my bike for three months with the intention of returning it, I'd class that as theft too.

Good work on the BS standards. Sincs, phone the manufacturer up and ask if it meets BS4110. If so, phone the police up and ask why they are holding your visor.

Don't let them make up there own laws as they like to do (no offence frazer), and don't take the rap for an accident that isn't your fault.

Originally Posted by andrewcharnley

"A person will be guilty of theft if he, dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it"

Not sure where you got that quote from, but if someone nicks my bike for three months with the intention of returning it, I'd class that as theft too.

Good work on the BS standards. Sincs, phone the manufacturer up and ask if it meets BS4110. If so, phone the police up and ask why they are holding your visor.

Don't let them make up there own laws as they like to do (no offence frazer), and don't take the rap for an accident that isn't your fault.

Andrew,

That quote is the definition of theft....as stated by law...and Andrew..we do not make up our own law we are governed by guidelines (such as P.A.C.E 1984). I do not take offence to this as it is completely ridiculous, it would never make it past CPS...let alone the section Sgt..

Andrew i know your heart is most likely in the right place and you have good intentions, but please...your like a rabbit on heat, I am sure Sincs is more than capable of fighting his own battles, please don't start talking verbal garbage about criminal law when you do not have a thorough understanding of it...thankyou.

[embee]

I know it's going way off line.............oh go on then!

I never did get that TWOC thing, taking without the owners consent. What ****head (you fill in the blanks) thought that one up, and why doesn't it apply to the five grand I pinched from the Post Office (oops!.....er, allegedly that is ).
What difference (morally at least) does it make whether I intended to "eventually" return it, whatever the legal definition of "permanently" might be? (end of the universe?)

It probably dates back hundreds of years and applies to horse rustling or similar.

No, I don't really want the real answer, just a rhetorical rant.

I remember making a statement when some pond-life pinched a car of mine (well, company car anyway) about 15 years ago, at 3 o'clock in the morning, and used it in a ram-raid on a clothes shop. The copper asked me if I'd given them my consent (yeah, I know, they are required to ask, but perleeease.................. ).

.......anyway, back to the mutual abuse, seconds away, round 3, "ding"

Oh, and the responsibility thing, basically you are responsible for your actions, "he told me to do it" isn't a defence, nor is "they said it was legal". Just wish this government didn't keep making up a gazillion new laws every year that were all supposed to know about, but that's what comes from having so many politicians who used to be lawyers and wish they still were.

Think that about covers most rant topics for now.


\/
..............................
Tact is the art of making your guests feel at home when you wish they were.

Originally Posted by fraser01

Andrew,

That quote is the definition of theft....as stated by law...and Andrew..we do not make up our own law we are governed by guidelines (such as P.A.C.E 1984). I do not take offence to this as it is completely ridiculous, it would never make it past CPS...let alone the section Sgt..

Andrew i know your heart is most likely in the right place and you have good intentions, but please...your like a rabbit on heat, I am sure Sincs is more than capable of fighting his own battles, please don't start talking verbal garbage about criminal law when you do not have a thorough understanding of it...thankyou.

<rant> There are many coppers that make up their own small laws, the type of self-laws that don't go through court. I've respect for the majority but with some the power clearly goes to the head.</rant>.

I don't confess to know much about law, only I am a well-educated law abiding citizen where my views of honesty and integrity nearly always match that of decency, which is law.

In this case, if the visor was BS approved then the police can surely have no reason hold it under a law the visor does not break, but frazer01 correct me if wrong.

The 1968 Theft Act is due for renewal. I'm off to nick a new R1 for a four year period after which I intend to return it. Just another legal loophole!

http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1968TheftAct.shtml

[embee]

Hey, further to Andrew's link there, in section 12(4) regarding "Taking of motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority", I'd interpret para (4) as meaning that the alleged miscreant ought to be charged with theft, and the jury should determine if it wasn't theft and should be "taking without consent of the owner".

Hmm, glad I'm not a lawyer, I could get really boring (what was that at the back?) .

Damn, I said I didn't want to know the real answer.

As someone charged with enforcing criminal law, I feel qualified to comment.

We are allowed to retain items pertinent to our investigations if we believe an offence has been committed. I suspect that this is the case here.

Just a thought................could it be that the policement who retained Sincs' visor has done so with a view to demonstrating to the Court that it wasn't a factor in in the accident - something that could work in Sincs' favour? After all, we do not know what the car drivers solicitors are claiming.

All the police are doing is investigating the circumstances of the incident. They are not judge and jury too.

Why do people always assume that the Police have some ulterior adverse motive?

And as for andrewcharnley claiming to be a law-abiding citizen This is the same bloke who has openly admitted that he did a "hit and run" on a pedestrian (albeit a probably intoxicated fisherman). Sorry, mate, you can't have it both ways.