Safe Speed Forums

Mike, has the point been completely missed? The claim is that the person who operated the laser wasn’t the one who formed prior opinion.
That might be moot anyway given the results from the civvie case.


Why on earth would there be a need for another officer further down the road to stop a vehicle? That seems utterly redundant considering the laser operator, or even the officer who formed the opinion, could have (and was claimed to have).


But if they all do it, all the time? ….


Is this an exaggeration?

If a PC was with the PCSOs then I would say she could argue in court, she had the prior opinion.

If the PC and two PCSOs were together then the above would be correct.

If you gave the PCSOs the abuse you claim to have given, then you would have been arrested, section 5 counts for PCSOs too, they would have instructed the PC to have words (at least).
I work with PCSOs and we do take care of them, regardless of our feelings towards there role, we are ordered to take positive action to ANYONE who verbally abuses them, (it’s policy)
Should the PCSOs have felt so inclined they could have arrested you themselves, under Sec 3 Crim Law 67 for public order.

Had you sped off in your 20ltr you would have received a summons in the post and possible section 59 warning.

First you say PCSOs shouldn’t be doing traffic, then you say PCs shuldnt be doing traffic unless they are a traffic officer.

I bet the PC introduced herself as “PC #$…. Im not a traffic officer sir, however I have been told I have to give you a ticket, sorry, and yes I hate them blue caps too, I have to baby-sit them today.

Just ridicules.

I have really lost interest no, there are so many holes and inconsistencies in your story you sound silly now.

So you’re caught speeding (allegedly), by the PC who is not an experienced traffic cop (which you know somehow) then they all jump in the road like kids doing cartwheels, then you give abuse to the PCSOs without any repercussions whatsoever.
Then you “floored your 2.0 litre motor and took off at about XXX MPH !!! they were fuming !!!! but didn’t receive a summons in the post for sec 59. which both PC and PCSO can issue.

Do you not see the inconsistencies?

But if they all do it, all the time? ….
who says they do???

In my force it is only a rarity when we have had certain “problems” on a stretch of road.

There is, as we would all agree, more pressing matters, however it’s still a law and requires SOME time concentrated on speeding motorists.



Is this an exaggeration?[/quote]

There is method to the madness my friend, it creates an atmosphere if you will, which helps Andy open up.

For example, we have just learned he sped off after his wife received the fine, this we were unaware of until now??

If you over exaggerate on there behalf, they must go in to more detail to explain the true events.

As you will see from Andys reply…. “floored my 2.0 litre motor and took off at about XXX MPH !!! they were fuming !!!!”

Thats how it was...like it or not...

Are you really a PCSO ..I Think maybe you are...or wannabee

Inconsistencies...

You mention in another post in the "SOAPBOX" Section where you mention police cars travelling at well XXX speed..please get real.

stop putting my statements into your words and twisting them....

Wish they had tried would have sued them for assault they have NO power to nick anyone ...are you PCSO 0879 ??? he was as daft as you !!!!

Perhaps, just perhaps, he is playing you at your own game


(at least I hope he is)

I was, and the car well it flew !!!!. ..VERY IMPRESSIVE !

Just like the IRV in work, or like a Police Car..speeding at XXX knots to another unimportant call..I dont even move out of there way when I see them on blues and twos ..Sod Em !!!!!

I have seen much evidence of police cars responding to calls like raving lunatics....and well them killing people AT VERY HIGH SPEEDS !!!!

LOOK AT HEATHER MILLS......Mad driving ...where were they going..???

Somewhere not very important... they should be banned..!!!

Is that why they put black boxes in them now..wonder why let me think !!!

Mike

What are you on about.,

first of all Special Constables well their not popular are they ???

What are you on about Sec 3 1967 ???

3:--

(1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

(2) Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose.


You are a dangerous man..god help you...what are you on
about..

PCSOSs cannot arrest people...I wouldnt have give em stick would I ???

PC = No stick ..they will arrest you..

PCSOs NO ARREST..GOT IT ....DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND..YOU ARE A PCSO IN DISGUISE !!!!

Have you read his posts??! He hasn’t the brain capacity.

The events stated are comical, just absurd.

He has no proof the PCSO had the “prior opinion” , in fact he has just let slip that they were together at the laser.

He knows the PC is not a traffic officer, however in his series of events the PC makes no mention of being or not being a traffic officer.


Yes Andy I am talking to you in the soap box thread, you can tell it’s me because my name is **mike** in that thread, as it is **mike** in this thread.
10 points for observation.

I don’t know about wannabees but I would certainly wannabe one of the PCSOs or PC who you met at the road side.


Andy PCSOs can arrest, as can you as a citizen.
The principle civilian powers of arrest fall under two headings:
• the power vested in both police officers and ordinary citizens to arrest in relation to a breach of the peace (see R v Howell 73 Cr. App R. 31).
• the power conferred by section 24 of PACE (Archbold 15-161 to 15 - 162):
a. to arrest anyone who is in the act of committing an arrestable offence or anyone whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an arrestable offence (S. 24(4)); and
b. where an arrestable offence has been committed, anyone who is guilty of having committed the offence or anyone the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of having committed it (S. 24(5)).
Please type in to Google “Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967” and look at Public order.

I think you are wrong quote one instance where a PCSO has arrested anyone...dont make me laugh !!!!!

Andy

“I have seen much evidence of police cars responding to calls like raving lunatics....and well them killing people AT VERY HIGH SPEEDS !!!!”

Do you have any proof of this?? How do you know they are not important calls??
You will not pull over for a police car on blues??

You have still failed to cut and past the statistics which you say clearly show Police Officer speeding to non emergency calls.

Will you post them or ignore me???

Should you ignore me Andy you look bad my friend.

Constables arrest people...

NOT PCSOs...do you not understand.....No POA ever..!!!!

Special Constables can arrest people..BUT NOT PCSOs

Go and see your tutor con..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/316105.stm

For starters ..dodgy police vehicle...

http://www.cwn.org.uk/999/2001/02/01021 ... -fatal.htm

Not answering an emergency call......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article ... .html?=rss

All for starters...more dangerous tahn our alleged 8MPH excess..

They want to sort their own house first..I for one do not ever move out of their way..putting pressure on me to move ..well I dont move...


They are a menace !!!!!!!! cheek reporting us for 8 mph

From : Home Office site.. http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:zo ... clnk&cd=10




Your turn, please past your statistics on PCs increasingly going to jobs on blue lights that are not emergency calls….

And on this note I shall bow out with dignity.

I will bow out..cant be bothered with you Mike,, PCSO in the waiting...

Andy

Your first link was in the news “Saturday, April 10, 1999” nearly 7/8 years ago

Your second link was published “12 Feb 01” nearly six years ago

Your third link is more recent but states that “Thirty-one people died in collisions with police cars in 2003-04. Photograph: Graham Turner” which is sad, but has no mention of any of them being non emergency calls!

So again Andy, please post a link that shows Police are killing more people responding to non emergency calls!

I have proven with my link that PCSOs can arrest under section 3 of the criminal Law act and Common Law, now you must deliver.



Take care smeggy, i have a feeling I may be here for a while

Well what about this whopper...

slams on cos he saw the speed camera !!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/11/1134.asp

90 in a 30 MPH okay cos he is in a police car..come on please !!!!!

Should be banned and fined..not 6pts and £60.00 ..dangerous that is !!!!

I dont have to bow to your demands...

I am making a point ...not telling the locals off now you are speaking to me !!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451760.stm

Read this....
then note if you can be bothered....

same article.....BBC News nov 2005...more carnage !!!

[b]Of the 44 deaths, 23 were in police pursuits, six involved police vehicles answering 999 calls and 15 were listed as "other". [/b]


15 other were boy racers showing off...

Sort out your own house ..then come and see us !!!!!

why me wrong all the time ..YOU RIGHT..that is why you are special..you are control freak...and you want to get your facts right...or am making all this up

Finally a link with some relevance, however it does not have anything to do with Police officers killing people driving to non emergency calls.

Andy the argument here AGAIN is, you say, Police Officers are killing more people responding to calls that are not emergency calls.

This link does not say anything about a cop killing someone because they were responding to a non emergency call.

Plus it has yet to be heard in court.