Safe Speed Forums

Roger, I will edit as you have asked and I am a guest in this forum, but I feel that, what I have said is justified.
It is an important part of this discussion and possible concussion, the actual details of Andy’s alleged fine.

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

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

Thank you.

http://www.wgreen.co.uk/details?prodid= ... om=1&to=50

AIUI Copyright laws prevent its being posted on the net, and if you have a captive market paying £390 a go would you put it free on the net.

Please don't insinuate that there is a link on the net (it may be available on a subscription legal site), I went to the Library exactly because it was not on the net, if it was on the net I would have posted it as I have with all the other available references.
Please believe me it is THE book the Clerk of the Court will use as reference to advise the Magistrates.

Also Mike,

Where in this long and winding thread was it agreed that the constable in this instance formed the prior opinion? Where?

We all agree that the constable should have formed the prior opinion but we just don't know.

I would suspect strongly that given the scenario described by HA that there was no prior opinion formed whatsoever.

I'm actually very interested to debate this as there are clearly wide ranging implications regarding the power of a PCSO to enforce speeding laws.

I just can't work out where you are coming from other than the vicki pollard stuff. Could you please write a brief post outlining your understanding of the situation described by HA and give your opinions accordingly.

Ok!

We can only assume certain things as we were not there, we were not with the PC or PCSOs and Andy refuses to publish the fine or documents (even with the sensitive bits crossed out)

BUT

We need to agree in principle that it could well have been Lawful. (which I believe has been done about ten times)
What people are still saying is that the scenario Andy mentions IS unlawful.

In Andy’s (alleged) scenario they were all together (PC & PCSOs)

If that’s the case, then the PC could have directed the PCSOs as to which vehicle to point the laser at.

The PC and PCSOs could have all witnessed the reading of the laser.

The PC & PCSOs jumped in the road and stopped the vehicle.

The PC issued the ticket.

Andy paid the fine.

In summary…
The Constable formed the prior opinion.
The Constable and PCSOs stopped the vehicle.
The Constable issued the fine.

We have to agree in principle that it could have been Lawful. If done correctly.

What everyone seems to be saying is that the PCSOs should not have even been there as that part makes it unlawful.

Which is clearly wrong, as NO ONE has posted/linked anything to suggest that, apart from saying there might be in a book at the library, that may say something different “but I don’t know what it might say”. come on!

All that we can go on here, is Andy’s questionable scenario.




ANDY! Who was the Moderator you posted the fine to, as it’s really important for this debate to be concluded!

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

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

Mike I shall answer the PM you sent me here for all to see.....

Who is the Moderator you posted the Documents too?

Paul Smith..just re-sent the docs via e mail.. Did mail before...

If you do not tell me then I am justified in calling you a Liar, as you clearly are.

Liar I am not ......

If you tell me their name, I will PM them and ask them the contents of this Fine and documents, then I will retract the comment where it says you are a liar and genuinely apologise to you.

VERY BIG OF YOU...dont bother ....!!!!




Your actions are unproffesional and you are a disgrace like the rest of your PCSO mates..taking taxpayers hard earned cash... for what..dogs pooing in the parks, taking ale off kids.

You are the liar and you and your PCSO mates are a laughing stock and disgrace on our POLICE SERVICE !!!!



Thank you

Dont thank me mike, thank all the people here who pay your wages for a second rate job not properly done !!! they are the people you want to thank !

Mike.


REPLY TO Mikes PM received 1.00 o clock this morning !!!


HA

If you sent it already, why would you need to re-send it?

I will await a reply from Paul Smith, as to what the documents consist of and the contents of these documents.

Mike.

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

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

I presume the documents were resent in case I didn't have them to hand. I confirm that I have received one set of documents twice.

I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be doing with them, and I definitely don't have time to get involved in silly games.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

DONT you ever call me a liar !!!!

Anyway what has this got to do with you....

You are very cheeky and demanding !!! RUDE even...

The content is nowt to DO with you..it is their forum and none of your businesss. , I posted to them to stop your misguided attempts to discredit me... The truth I tell dont call me a liar !!!

Great representative of your Police Force you are..calls the public LIARS !!!

What is your collar number and station address then..come on post them here ...

HA

Thanks Paul

I did not seek to involve you..this man calls me a liar when people offer their advice on this matter. I am sure you have other things to do.. I will not trouble you..keep up the good work !!!

Thanks

Andy

You post whatever summary of the documents you consider appropriate and then I can endorse it as a fair description if it is so.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I do not seek to justify myself to PCSOs... cheek calling people liars ..

I am not going to waste anymore of your valuable time.

This is your forum..and Im sure you have better things to occupy your valuable time. I shall not trouble you more ..

Regards, thanks

Andy

Mike ????

Sorry, I’ve been away for the day, just got back.

Right!

First off Andy, I don’t have a collar number.


You posted the Mod the documents, not to prove you had the documents, but to prove what’s in them, to conclude this bloody longwinded debate.

With all due respect, this is quite an important issue, one that hasn’t really been tried in court, so I would say its significant to come to some form of conclusion, however silly it may appear to be.

I apologise Andy for suggesting they did not exist, however I was more interested in what they contained should they exist.

Can it be confirmed that the mod has a letter of receipt of complaint that was sent to the Police? (that was one document Andy said he would post/did post to the mod)



In summary

1) the speed quoted
2) the officer was a woman (if you can tell from the fine)
3) the time of day and day of week
4) any mention of PCSOs (I know that wouldn’t necessarily be on the fine, but its worth asking)
5) if the letter of receipt from the police was sent to the mod
6) if the complaint was sent to the mod
7) if there are any discrepancies from Andy’s original story.

I shouldn’t think any of thoughs questions are to intrusive, but will give us some useful facts.

Hopefully with thoughs answered, we can conclude this.

Thanks.

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

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

Mike,

I really don't understand what all this will tell us??

Even if HA had made the whole thing up (which I don't believe he has) there is a scenario that can be discussed ad debated here.

What I find rather startling is that given all the 'facts' you seem to be starting from the premise that all is legal and above board.

Look at it this way.

There may have been no prior opinion
There may have been prior opinion but formed by the PCSO
The PCSO may or may not be competent in use of the device
The WPC may have stopped the car
The PCSO may have stopped the car
The WPC may have instructed the pCSO to stop the car (is this legal)

You seem to have taken an interesting scenario with many facets to discuss and turned it into a playground spat.

In summary yes everything may have been legal and above board but equally evrything could have been far from that. My guess is somewhere in the middle but remembver that in law anything less than 100% is wrong!

Civil Engineer..the very points I intended to raise !!!

Thanks matey, that’s all I have been trying to say!

People kept jumping in saying PCSO actually being there made it unlawful, which is wrong and what I’ve been objecting to.

In principle PCSOs can be there with the PC and it CAN be Lawful, of course if they don’t follow the rules then that’s different, but we were never discussing that.

Thank god for that.

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

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

So have have a conclusion then?

The situation that HA described may, or may not be lawful!

I've brought the thread to a conclusion could someone please lock it and tell me where I can claim my prize matey??

I agree, I think it is concluded, PCSOs can be present with the PC and it can be Lawful, so long as they follow the rules.

Yay!!

Andy, me, hug, come on!

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

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