Police stopped me.

mrbadexample

derrick wrote: »

the LEGAL requirements of the HC!

The Highway Code is not a legal document. It's an interpretation of the legislation. Therefore there are no LEGAL requirements of the Highway Code.

You are legally required to abide by the relevant legisation. The Highway Code may be similar or identical in meaning, but it is not the legislation itself, and has no standing in law.

In your post about fog lights etc, you refer to the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989. That is the applicable legislation in those circumstances, not the Highway Code.

mrbadexample

Steve_xx wrote: »

Whether a police officer has had a good day or a bad day is irrelevant. Police are expected to be highly trained professionals and they are mandated to conduct their business in accordance with the law of the land, not their own interpretation of it. Similarly they have a duty to treat people with respect and dignity and it is not their option to treat anyone otherwise. Unfortunately there is good and bad in all walks, however, where police officers are concerned, it seems to me that there are too many of them that do enjoy the act of thoroughly humiliating the public. The result of this is that members of the public will develop a flagrant dislike of the police, and the police are wholly to blame for that.

Are you having a laugh? What you're effectively saying here is that a police officer must apply the law of the land in all cases regardless of circumstances. Have you ever heard of the word "discretion"? A police officer is required to use his or her discretion in deciding what course of action should be taken regarding any offence that has apparently been committed. If they all behaved the way you think they should, no one would ever get let off for anything.

"I'm sorry sir, you may have extenuating circumstances or mitigation for doing what you've done, but I must apply the law of the land - here's your 3 points and fine."

Have you ever considered that there is a big difference between someone who is deliberately flouting the law, and someone who has genuinely made a mistake? Yet you think they should be treated exactly the same regardless of circumstances? Try joining the real world for a while! If police officers acted like you said, the courts would be rammed 24/7, and they woudn't be able to build jails quickly enough.

Consider the application of the "Public Interest Test" - is it in the public interest to prosecute this individal for this offence? That's what police officers have to consider in each and every case.

Steve_xx wrote: »

I think what we're saying is that we have a basic right to be treated respectfully.

I agree, but police officers have the basic right to be treated with respect too. Do you think they enjoy dealing with the scrote who's giving it all the "'aven't yoo got anyfing better to do, I pay yer wages" etc.?
If you were a police officer, and you had to deal with a polite and reasonable human being, would you treat them exactly the same as the mindless idiot who's giving it large? (You might say yes, but that doesn't make it true.)

By the same token, when you phone up the man from the curry house because he's been 10 minutes longer than he said, and give him a load of verbal, do you expect him not to spit in your food?

When you give your plumber an ear-bashing because he hasn't finished the job exactly when he said he would, do you expect him to pull out all the stops to get your heating fixed as quickly as possible? No, he's going to make you wait.

It's called human nature. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

If you get stopped for speeding, you're going to get points and a fine.
If I get stopped in the same circumstances, there's a pretty good chance I'm going to get a producer and a b0ll0cking.

The "attitude test" does exist, and it's a test that's in your best interest to pass. :rolleyes:

P.S. No I am not a police officer, nor do I work for the police.

mrbadexample

derrick wrote: »

Here we go again," we can't live without lorries", we did before they came on the scene, and could/would if they went off the scene!

You're absolutely right. We did all get by before there were lorries, and we would get by again if they all disappeared overnight.

Before lorries, everything got moved about by horse & cart, barges, hand carts, or just by people carrying things unaided. Sadly, this was slow and cràp, and you wouldn't like it very much if you had to do it now.

Alias_Omega

From what i have read from the OP, well the person who started the thread.

I would imagine that they were 2 young people (below 20yrs old), driving in a small hot hatch, maybe earlier than 1998, some form of 1200cc car modified.

I can just imagine this jumped up passenger thinking he is all it, as he is sitting in the passenger seat, giving people grief at lights as he is 'da man', windows down with loud music playing. We have all seen them.

I would like to think that they were stopped due to the nature of the fault, ie skipping a changing light, then upon stopping them and checking the car was legal (car ins, driver, mot, tax) on the computer, as they probably dont have ANPR fitted, the passenger started to churp up asking why they were victimised.

As the police officer did not invite them to his house for tea and biscuits, and decided to inspect the car further, to tell them that a tyre was probably due for a change, or even better recommend changing the tyre for the spare now, he decides to give the 2 officers some verbal abuse on how he knows the law better than them.

We see these people pop up on the forum, and claim abuse and a victim of bad management, though in reality they are a little bit out of touch with reality, think they know best, wont take any advice from anyone, and seriously need to grow up asap.

regards,

alias

Steve_xx

mrbadexample wrote: »

Are you having a laugh? What you're effectively saying here is that a police officer must apply the law of the land in all cases regardless of circumstances. Have you ever heard of the word "discretion"? A police officer is required to use his or her discretion in deciding what course of action should be taken regarding any offence that has apparently been committed. If they all behaved the way you think they should, no one would ever get let off for anything.

"I'm sorry sir, you may have extenuating circumstances or mitigation for doing what you've done, but I must apply the law of the land - here's your 3 points and fine."

Have you ever considered that there is a big difference between someone who is deliberately flouting the law, and someone who has genuinely made a mistake? Yet you think they should be treated exactly the same regardless of circumstances? Try joining the real world for a while! If police officers acted like you said, the courts would be rammed 24/7, and they woudn't be able to build jails quickly enough.

Consider the application of the "Public Interest Test" - is it in the public interest to prosecute this individal for this offence? That's what police officers have to consider in each and every case.



I agree, but police officers have the basic right to be treated with respect too. Do you think they enjoy dealing with the scrote who's giving it all the "'aven't yoo got anyfing better to do, I pay yer wages" etc.?
If you were a police officer, and you had to deal with a polite and reasonable human being, would you treat them exactly the same as the mindless idiot who's giving it large? (You might say yes, but that doesn't make it true.)

By the same token, when you phone up the man from the curry house because he's been 10 minutes longer than he said, and give him a load of verbal, do you expect him not to spit in your food?

When you give your plumber an ear-bashing because he hasn't finished the job exactly when he said he would, do you expect him to pull out all the stops to get your heating fixed as quickly as possible? No, he's going to make you wait.

It's called human nature. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

If you get stopped for speeding, you're going to get points and a fine.
If I get stopped in the same circumstances, there's a pretty good chance I'm going to get a producer and a b0ll0cking.

The "attitude test" does exist, and it's a test that's in your best interest to pass. :rolleyes:

P.S. No I am not a police officer, nor do I work for the police.

Er yes, police officers should apply the law of the land, and it is "ultra vires" of them to act otherwise. And, a police officer is not "required" to use their discretion, instead they are "required" to act in a prescribed manner. This prescribed manner is the law as set by the Law Lords, not set by police officers. Though of course we all know that the police do have a fair amount of discretion to act or not to act in individual circumstances and we all think that this is good if we're speeding and they simply give us a warning rather than the points and a fine.

Police officers should also treat people respectfully and with dignity. I believe it is too often the case that they do not. Therefore, in acting as they so often do, the resultant effect is that they alienate themselves from the public and this in itself is not an ideal scenario. Though I accept that in the instance where an officer is being abused by a member of the public, that this is not acceptable behaviour.

derrick

mrbadexample wrote: »

The Highway Code is not a legal document. It's an interpretation of the legislation. Therefore there are no LEGAL requirements of the Highway Code.

You are legally required to abide by the relevant legisation. The Highway Code may be similar or identical in meaning, but it is not the legislation itself, and has no standing in law.

In your post about fog lights etc, you refer to the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989. That is the applicable legislation in those circumstances, not the Highway Code.

In itself the HC is not a "legal document" but a lot of the rules in it are legal requirements.

Read the first page! from which this is a quote:- Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST / MUST NOT. In addition the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

One of the examples I quoted:-

201: You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves (see Rule 211).


[SIZE=-1]Law RVLR regs 25 & 27[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]Correct they are REGULATIONS, i.e THE LAW![/SIZE]


I do not know why you posted this garbage, I pointed out wrong info on the thread and people like you try to kick holes in it, try breaking these laws when there is a marked police are in the vicinity and see if you argument stands up then!

mrbadexample

derrick wrote: »

I do not know why you posted this garbage, I pointed out wrong info on the thread and people like you try to kick holes in it, try breaking these laws when there is a marked police are in the vicinity and see if you argument stands up then!

I posted this "garbage" to correct your misinformation. I reckon I could kick holes in it all day long. I think we've been here before on another thread, haven't we? You seem to take great delight in telling everyone that the Highway Code is the law. It isn't. :rolleyes:

The fact that the Highway Code refers to the relevant legislation does not make it a legal document. As I have explained, it is an interpretation of the legislation. If you can't get your head round that, let me know and I'll try to dumb it down for you. :rolleyes:

No one has ever been prosecuted for failing to follow the Highway Code.

derrick

mrbadexample wrote: »

I posted this "garbage" to correct your misinformation. I reckon I could kick holes in it all day long. I think we've been here before on another thread, haven't we? You seem to take great delight in telling everyone that the Highway Code is the law. It isn't. :rolleyes:

The fact that the Highway Code refers to the relevant legislation does not make it a legal document. As I have explained, it is an interpretation of the legislation. If you can't get your head round that, let me know and I'll try to dumb it down for you. :rolleyes:

No one has ever been prosecuted for failing to follow the Highway Code.

My information is not wrong, the points I have made,(the legal requirements), are in the HC and as I have said , whilst the HC is not a legal document, there are a lot of legal rules in it and they are pointed out, read the quote from my post above #177,(from the HC), then try your argument on a traffic cop when you break one.

It is you who wants it dumbing down, it tells you:- Its rules apply to all road users:

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to establish liability.

You are just splitting hairs and playing with words.

there will not be a lot of people who continue to read the HC after passing their test, and a lot less that will read the Road Traffic Act, therefore for anyone who wants to check up on a legal point, a lot is covered in the HC, i.e where it says, MUST / MUST NOT,those points are legal!

Now if you cannot get your head round that, then there is not much hope for you.

mrbadexample

derrick wrote: »

You are just splitting hairs and playing with words.

No, I just understand what the words mean. Bless. :rolleyes:

Conor_3

derrick wrote: »

And that is all it was, a threat, because you lost the previous one :rotfl::rotfl:

Are you paying £1.50 a litre? No.

We didn't.

And at least we did something unlike you cowards.