We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
section 59 - outrageous highway robbery?
Comments
-
I don't live there at the moment although have spent lots of time in Crumlin, just up the bypass road, so Blackwood is the nearest town.Do you live in Blackwood then?
If you mean the bumps in entrance to McD's yeah those bumps are crazy, but sadly it seems they need them. I especially like the sign on entrance to Asda opposite which shows you your reg number and says if you joyride in their car park they'll send you a "fine" in the post. Maybe there's no illegal speeds but you can harass other road users (drivers, pedestrians - particularly the elderly) simply by accelerating like an idiot and pointlessly driving round and round in circles when you could do it on a race track or have gone somewhere more appropriate. If I go somewhere, I go there, park, then leave. I don't drive round and round. I'd be happy to see all their cars sent to the crusher so if I want to go to McDonalds in the evening I can do it without being concerned someone's going to drive into my car.
I vote for the boy racers to drive down Mynyddislwyn or Manmoel. Both fun roads to drive on, both little distance from Blackwood, and they could even go up to 60mph legally if they like. Plus I doubt the police hang around those areas.
Oh and when they go to Pen-Y-Fan pond maybe someone could lock the barrier with them all in there :j0 -
I like that road over Mynyddislwyn. Laughed my !!!! off a few months back when I saw a lorry from the Czech Republic with a tomtom stuck to the windscreen heading up that road though.
Lots of good roads around here, but that isn't the point of "cruising" it's to be "seen" and to show off what you've done to your car. Given how much the insurance hammer youngsters for any kind of performance modification these days it's hardly surprising that most of them go down the route of gluing on bits of misshapen fibreglass.
As for that Asda sign, doesn't joyriding, by definition, involve stolen vehicles, so the sign is as worthless and meaningless as the "fine" they send out.
Myself I've never seen any harassment going on. I accept that some elderly people may find large groups of "yoofs" intimidating but if they aren't doing anything wrong I'm not convincied that forcing them to move on is the right thing to do. It's basically saying "we dont want your sort around here."
I guess this is why the police have closed the road to all traffic. They can't just close it to chavs. One of the other valleys towns (possibly Bargoed) as put up "no u-turns 8PM - 4AM" signs on all the roundabouts and they just enforce that instead. That's a slightly better solution IMO.0 -
Taken from the IPCC website...
None of the above covers appealling a S59 which, at the present time, is legally issued on a Police Officers "say so"!
If you take it to the IPCC you are actually making a complaint about the officers conduct, not an appeal under the law & as far as I can see the IPCC have no powers to overturn a legal document!
If you read further on, on the same page...
"not abuse the extraordinary powers and authority police officers are granted"
I think that covers what people are saying on here about S59.
Afterall, you can only appeal if you have done nothing wrong, therefore you are in fact calling into question the issuing officers decision to issue with the S59.
The IPCC do deal with this sort of situation, and can overturn it.
The IPCC deal with a lot more than the small section you chose to cut and paste.0 -
maninthestreet wrote: »Failing to indicate at a roundabout isn't really anti-social is it?
It may come under driving carelessly, he might have crossed the roundabout at speed.
I agree that video evidence should be mandatory. I also think siezing cars because of no insurance which is also down to the the PC being judge and jury needs to be looked at.
Anyhoo, thread too long to comment any further.0 -
I also think siezing cars because of no insurance which is also down to the the PC being judge and jury needs to be looked at.
Anyhoo, thread too long to comment any further.
At least with 'no insurance' seizures, the car will not be present on the Motor Insurer's database, and most police officers will give check with any insurance company that the driver claims to be insured with, before seizing the car."You were only supposed to blow the bl**dy doors off!!"0 -
maninthestreet wrote: »At least with 'no insurance' seizures, the car will not be present on the Motor Insurer's database, and most police officers will give check with any insurance company that the driver claims to be insured with, before seizing the car.
The first point is not evidence of no insurance,
The second point is impossible out side of working hours.
A simple solution would be to only allow seizure during working hours 9am - 6pm after a phonecall has taken place.0 -
A simple solution would be to only allow seizure during working hours 9am - 6pm after a phonecall has taken place.
And therefore allow people to drive without insurance outside of office hours.Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
If you read further on, on the same page...
"not abuse the extraordinary powers and authority police officers are granted"
I did read it & my interpretation was totally different to yours.I think that covers what people are saying on here about S59.
I don't think it does.Afterall, you can only appeal if you have done nothing wrong, therefore you are in fact calling into question the issuing officers decision to issue with the S59.
Absolutely!The IPCC do deal with this sort of situation, and can overturn it.
The IPCC deal with a lot more than the small section you chose to cut and paste.
Taken from the FAQ section on IPCC site....Can I make a complaint to the IPCC about a fixed penalty notice/caution/ASBO?
You can complain to the IPCC if you are unhappy with the conduct of an officer or member of police staff or if you feel you were treated badly or unfairly by the police. However this would not remove the fixed penalty. This also applies if you have been issued with a caution or have been issued with an ASBO. The IPCC cannot remove a police caution or contest the caution on your behalf. If you would like to challenge a police caution or fixed penalty, or contest an ASBO you should contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau or seek legal advice.
Substitute Section 59 for ASBO, after all that's what it is, a motoring ASBO!
The only recourse for a S59 is a letter to your local Chief Constable asking for "mercy" & he's hardly independent is he? After that you can take civil action at considerable cost to yourself... seems fair to me
There is no burden of proof or substantial evidence required for the issue of S59, it's based on the whim of an Officer (or PCSO :eek: ) who may be in a "bad mood" after, say, finding out his wife has been shagged by John Terry!
It's a piece of legislation with no proper controls that has been corrupted from it's original purpose.
What it needs is an independent appeal panel, much like there is for parking offences, & until such a thing exists it will continue to be abused by unscrupulous BiB!Always try to be at least half the person your dog thinks you are!0 -
Chippy_Minton wrote: »And therefore allow people to drive without insurance outside of office hours.
It worked before, there's no reason it can't work again.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.9K Spending & Discounts
- 244.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards