Safe Speed Forums

Were not talking about the speeding conviction, we are stating that “legally, in law, there is nothing to say a PCSO or Civilian, cannot man the laser.

We all agree the prior opinion needs to be from a Constable.

Yay …We all agree!

But what Tim is suggesting with the link he posted, is that, you need a power to be able to use the Laser, and the fact the CC had not mention such a power, proves that civilians or in that case, PCSO cannot use the equipment.

My point is, You do not need a “Power” designated or otherwise, to perform the role of using the equipment (just need to be trained to force policy standard etc)

There is NOTHING in Law that says a civilian cannot use this equipment.
In Andy’s post, he had said they “were all together” the Police woman and the Bluecaps.
So is it possible the Police woman (Constable) told them where to point it and formed that opinion then saw the reading (if as Andy suggested they were together than its highly possible and likely. – as you have also suggested Civil Eng.

Regardless, this is not a discussion about the Prior Opinion (we all appear to agree on that for now) it’s the fact that Lawfully a PCSO and Civilian can use this equipment if a Constable was with them.

No one has managed to back up an argument to suggest otherwise (although Tim posted a link where it says PCSOs have 4 powers…..it was somehow relevant…apparently )

He then went on to attempt to rubbish my (very reasonable valid) argument by telling me I made no sense and sounded like Vikey Pollard…Tim has now disappeared after realizing he couldn’t find legislation that backed up his argument, funny that.

Just a thought….



Andy had stated he posted the Documents to the Moderators as he did not want it up for the world to see but was prepared for the Mod’s to clarify what they said (in summary) for this thread.

It’s been some weeks now and no “Mod” has clarified anything, can they please clarify for us?

Thank you

Mike.

I have been watching this post with some interest and have been compelled to join in for clarification purposes.

The attached link from the Home Office website may clarify what powers chief officers may choose to designate CSOs in specific areas.

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-an ... iew=Binary

The following link is a pdf document from the Home Office site called Powers Currently Designated on Community Support Officers, by Police Force Area - August 2006

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-an ... csospowers

Its a bit hard to read, but it may help clarify what powers CSOs in Merseyside have had since Aug 2006.

Hope this helps.

If the constable said 'I think that vehicle is speeding, please confirm with the approved device mr PCSO' then I don't see that there would be an issue, I don't think anyone else does either .... so why are you making a bit deal about who mans the gun?

It's the prior opinion that counts.

Hi Civil engineer,

Where does it say that PCSOs can operate laser guns..or other traffic speed measuring equipment...in that document ???

They should be operated by trained PEOPLE ..not PCSO`s...

I fail to see what you mean ??? unless perhaps PCSOs were putting points on your licence perhaps !!!

THE PC might know what she is doing..have these two PCSO been properly trained to playabout with peoples licences on our streets. ???

If there is any doubt ..we should win our complaint...

If this were you you .. you would perhaps want the the reassurance that the people fiiring bullets at you were :-

1) Trained properly,
2) Had properly calibrated all the equipment.
3) Were in the capable hands of Traffic Police Officers..perhaps..

There are enough proper PCs to do this task..why let police seconds loose with these devices ?????

To provide them with something to do...

I have been past the place we were stung ..and now they have REAL PCs operating the GUN..with their hod carriers (PCSO) standing a few feet away from the the device..got the message perhaps ???

To date from time of letter NO PCSOS seen operating the GUN !!!

Carry laser in box .. back to the van ...but none of the difficult stuff..


Regards

HA

I'm using a bit of guesswork but I would imagine that if they can prove that the PCSO was competant (trained etc) and that the WPC actually formed the prior opinion then they win.

Given what you've described I would Imagine that the PCSO was firing at everything that went passed and there was no prior opinion whatsoever but given that the WPC was there she'll just say that she formed it.

Have you asked for proof of their training?

Hi

I have asked these very questions... these two PCSOs had traffic PCSO labels on their backs.. !!!

I dont know and cant think why they are engaged or indeed even at the scene of a radar trap... why ????

I see nothing in the forementioned document that gives them the right to engage in this type of activity. Stopping cars etc and certain other things ..yes... but no reference of them being able to OPERATE LASERS.


The whole reason for my complaint is that these people are supposed to be really engaged in community activities etc..not standing with a PC firing lasers at passing cars.. another gripe..

Police are trying to sell themselves as community orientated and being a bigger part of the community...how great is this activity ..having two PCSOs trying to involve themselves in traffic speed enforcement ..possibly one of the least POPULAR jobs that the police carry out. ..and my argument is ..let the traffic police do it !!!

Someone with say 6 points or so could have been banned perhaps as a result of the incompetence of these two people who I would suggest are not competent or indeed ..confidant in dealing with anything other than stopping dogs pooing in the park...this was a shambles...

Why did PC shout over to them "What speed was she doing " ?? to our bluecapped friends ??? they are wrong the PCSOs are out of their depth..and not at our expense..cos I will fight em !

Not is a rush to reply to me..I am going to write to them when I am not too busy later today...

This is in its self SHAMBOLIC...should be Police doing this job properly..not two incompetent PCSOs with traffic on their backs !! what nonsense is this !!! what a waste of your taxes !!

PC should do all..no need for these two to be involved ....Ridiculous !!!

If these two are looking for some real heart stopping excitement .. I could probably take em to work with me for ten minutes or half an hour ... I doubt they would pass thru the doors.

Love to see them perform in a REAL situation... perhaps not !

Because Civil, Tim had stated you needed a power to man the gun!
Is that not evident.

I stated that you do not need a power – Tim quoted the CC of that force telling us all what powers PCSOs have – my point was, it has no relevance as you do not require a Power!

With that out of the way…

The discussion is in regard to Andy’s case, which in theory (we all seem to agree now) the PCSOs are able to undertake this role and Andy’s ticket would be Lawful.
(in theory)

Ok, I’m happy now.

_________________
Don’t believe everything you read in the papers.

“The truth is bloody boring”- Max Clifford, News Of The World

It does help ..thank you...

Where does this mention enforcement of TRAFFIC law ..

I would appreciate your explanation... I could be wrong..honest I am..

BUT ..........Wrong I may be sometimes !!!

Hope your not a PCSO !

Mike,

Nice to see you..hope school is good.. !!!

Just seen a job that may suit when you leave school..bluecap included !!

http://www.met.police.uk/cadets/

Do they do laser as well ????

What do you mean ????

This event is a shambles...

WHAT GIVES A PCSO THE RIGHT TO OPERATE Home Office equipment in respect of speed enforcement ????

What is a traffic PCSO ???

No

I'll go back to the question that I asked many moons ago.

If the PCSO was manning the gun and the WPC issued the FPN, who formed the prior opinion?

Welcome back Andy, we’ve missed you!

It just means they have traffic warden powers as well as PCSO powers.



Hmmm perhaps because they are here to free up Police resources, they are after all, Police Support as well as Community Support.

I would even go so far as to say, it could possible be that the community have raised issues with speeding motorists in this area and they are supporting that community (its possible, and we just don’t know do we)



That’s the point, there are no powers designated to them to use the Lasers, as there is no requirement in Law to have any Power to Operate the Laser!!!




No. The whole reason for your complaint was to suggest they were ALL incompetent fatties, with no training, knowledge and that they were ALL wannabes who couldn’t cut it as a real Police officer, even if they didn’t want to be or had never applied.



The ticket was issued by a REAL Police Officer right? And I agree it’s not very popular, but someone has to do it.



That’s news Andy! You never mentioned that fundamentally important thing before, Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinteresting…..



Will you? I thought you paid the fine?!? And it would appear had you fought them you would have lost as the ticket was Lawful (as we now all agree)

On a more serious note, Its fair to challenge things if we feel they are unfair or unjustified/unlawful, but if we have nothing to back that argument up, advising other people to challenge it is not fair on them, they would be fighting in court under false pretences and that could cost them triple…do you really want that Andy?

Andy, which Moderator did you post the documents to?
I have contacted the site owner and he doesn’t seem to know anything about the documents, its been weeks now and no Modorator knows what your talking about, and now your story is changing, and your adding things… now the PC shouted over to the PCSOs, who are no longer all together.

So Andy, which Mod did you post the documents to? I’m very sceptical from what you have said so far, sorry but its hard not to be..

_________________
Don’t believe everything you read in the papers.

“The truth is bloody boring”- Max Clifford, News Of The World

And it was answered many moons ago!
The Constable forms the prior opinion.
As they were together then there is nothing to say the Constable did not form the Prior Opinion.

There is no requirement in Law to have a “power” to use the Laser……
They all had power to stop the vehicle
The PC had the power to write the ticket

So, Lawful!


The point of my link was in response to the comment, its one on one in court, I was merely stating that a PCSO is a Professional Witness (hence the link I posted) its not to say they can form a Prior Opinion (I thought they could about ten pages back, but they had no power designated) its JUST to say a PCSO hold a fair bit of weight in court when giving their evidence as they are Police Professional Witnesses not that that’s got anything to do with the prior opinion…it is unrelated, just a response to a previous comment from someone else.

_________________
Don’t believe everything you read in the papers.

“The truth is bloody boring”- Max Clifford, News Of The World

NO we don't,

The links you asked for, do not exist on the web, The Legal Authority is 'Wilkinson's Road Traffic Law'.
Let me try to explain,
It is only available as 'book' ( hard copy)
in a Library (a big building full of books).



There needs to be 3 things for a successful prosecution
1)Opinion of excess speed,
2)Corroboration of the opinion of excess speed,
3)Evidence of the driver,

The first two are still disputed in court and in here,
and I'm going to wait until due legal process has finished in the Devizes case.
but the third causes a problem,
Psco's powers don't seem to allow them to stop the vehicle,
or ask name and address in HA's circumstances, check the references in the links. It doesn't come under road checks section and may be a breach of the P.A.C.E. Act, this whole case does really need investigating, HA talk to your MP.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.4
Road checks

4. - (1) This section shall have effect in relation to the conduct of road checks by police officers for the purpose of ascertaining whether a vehicle is carrying -

(a) a person who has committed an offence other than a road traffic or a vehicle excise offence;
(b) a person who is a witness to such an offence;
(c) a person intending to commit such an offence; or
(d) a person who is unlawfully at large.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/arrestor.htm

The "it doesn't say they can't" argument (with no known precedent) is a bit weak when it gets to the Royal (and possibly the European) Courts of Justice.

We spent 10 pages with you quoting all kinds of nonsense legislation, that you said gave these powers, SOCAP, PRA etc.,
now you just say, "it doesn't say they can't",
I think you should make your mind up,

When the devizes case is settled we'll see who was right.

I've nothing more to add to this topic
I rest my case,
(obviously I'm only interested in the verdicts of those who aren't Mike),
My learned friend Mr C Eng. may have more to add.

fatboytim

Mike


Have paid fine.

She has 3 points....

I have mailed docs to mods... I have !!!!!

PCSO still a waste of our hard earned money.. TAX !

No place for them in the REAL world..sorry !!!!

ME Honest.... are you ?????

Why are PCSOs doing this work .....

Why does a PC want two unprofessional witnesses with her ???

I am a little lost....



Hope they dont get this second rate people in weird uniforms thing in my place of work !!!!!


This cant be real

Andy, I still want a HUG! And AGAIN, what Mod did you post it to? There is no reason not to tell to tell me? Well there is one reason I guess..

Tim, when I first came on here, I assumed Andy was telling the truth and thought I’d fight the PCSOs corner, I assumed there MUST be something in Law that says they can use lasers and form opinions etc.

Then realised hang on, I’m wrong, PCSOs can’t form the Prior Opinion.

BUT in Honest (lol) Andy’s scenario, they were all together, there is NOTHING to say that Andys incident was unlawful NOTHING!

You can tell me there is lots of information, to suggest a PCSO or civilian cannot use the Laser equiptment, but it cant be posted on here, “its only…like, um in the library and that” you can speak of powers that are required. What power?

You don’t need a bloody power to operate a Laser under the guidance and supervision of a constable, if the constable makes the prior opinion and stops the car and issues the ticket, I see NOTHING there that suggest it’s unlawful.

I have admitted when I was wrong.
This Tim, you are wrong about and you will not accept it.

It’s in a book in the library, not on the internet; you can’t find it on google.
It’s simple, how new are roadside Lasers, surely they would need to be an amendment to road law for the lasers to be used, and if so does it have to be a Constable?

If that is what you are suggesting, then post a bloody link, I don’t want to hear it’s not available online, it’s a secret document that’s buried at the back of a library.


Nonsense.

The only thing we appear to be disputing is the actual holding and pointing of the laser, and if the PC is with the PCSO/civilian, then they are able to see the laser and direct the PCSO/civilian as to who it should be pointed at.

So again, please post ANYTHING that backs up your claim??

You won’t Tim, because you do not need a Power to carry out this task, in the same way a Police (civilian) CCTV operator doesn’t need a power to carry out their task/role.

Similar to Andy, as soon as I ask you to actually back up your claim, you say “I have said all I want to say now, I’m off”.

Come on just say “Mike, I guess you have a valid point” I have done it, don’t be so darn stubborn.

_________________
Don’t believe everything you read in the papers.

“The truth is bloody boring”- Max Clifford, News Of The World

Indeed you are, and out of your depth.

Andy, unfortunately for you, I can say with some justification that, your unjustified in you comments.

The story has changed tonight, since you saw obvious holes in it.

You have failed to post the Fine & Doc’s, which you said you would.

You have failed to post the Fine & Doc’s to the Moderators, which you said you would do/have done.

You have failed to post the name of the Moderator you said you posted the Doc’s to.

You have ignored every answer to every question you have asked.

You are waffling on about things you clearly have NO knowledge on.

Perhaps an angry Securicor Guard who failed to get in to the Police as a PCSO.

Sorry Andy, but I feel my comments are justified, which is more that can be said for some.

I too have concerns over the implementation and future of PCSOs, my views are based on knowledge on both sides of the fence, unlike some.






(edited, to attack points and arguments, not individuals)

_________________
Don’t believe everything you read in the papers.

“The truth is bloody boring”- Max Clifford, News Of The World

Mike

PLEASE attack points not posters. Phraseology as above is unacceptable - and you know it. Kindly edit.