|
We've pulled the thread at his request - which on reflection is a good idea. He wants to protect people who've advised him. As and when he gets a result I hope he'll update the outcome here. Thanks to all the contributors, especially the professionals who offered him good solid advice.
|
Thanks PU and GB.
Did you get my request for the transfer of personal details with another member?
|
Already done it (and with the two "others" as well)
Martin.
If you need a copy of the thread to get at the specific advice you were given re: wording etc, I can e-mail it across - but I'll have to get a pencil behind my ear and give a sharp intake of breath :-)
|
I made a copy earlier up until my post ending with the words ’ My word. MD.
I have nothing after that or anything that may have got in between.
If you can it would be good, but don't bust a gut. I think 'most' of what I have is pertinent.
Many thanks..............MD
|
|
It's a given. Will take a day or two though. 'She' hasn't started to diffuse yet.
|
These orders were sold to parliament on the basis they would clamp down on boy racers and their 'cruises', and on 4X4 drivers barging along Green Lanes.
Seems to me they have turned into a 'due care and attention lite', and as such, Martin undertaking another driver probably qualifies.
Incidentally, they can be issued by anyone authorised by the chief constable to do so.
In Durham, the chief has authorised the PCSOs.
Practically, few PCSOs, especially on foot patrol, have the space to carry the pads.
|
|
The more I think about it, the better I like this bit of legislation. There was a motorcyclist this morning going through Oxford Circus to whom I'd have given such a piece of paper - for driving like crazy at people crossing a pedestrian crossing that was (admittedly) on red. And a cyclist, too, for jumping a red light.
|
>> These orders were sold to parliament on the basis they would clamp down on boy
>> racers and their 'cruises', and on 4X4 drivers barging along Green Lanes.
4x4's are allowed to use some green lanes, depending on the designation, just as all the other road users are.
I don't know what your definition of 'barging' is, but considerate usage shouldn't be a problem...unless of course some would wish to keep them all to themselves.
|
|
Two lanes going the same way part of a ring road with an option to turn right part way along. the PCSO was seemingly going to turn right and I was going straight ahead so continued past him. I really don't think I should slow and wait for whatever he makes up his mind to do, do you. When I mentioned the 'undertake' to him he replied that he wasn't concerned about that.
|
>> >> These orders were sold to parliament on the basis they would clamp down on
>> boy
>> >> racers and their 'cruises', and on 4X4 drivers barging along Green Lanes.
>>
>> 4x4's are allowed to use some green lanes, depending on the designation, just as all
>> the other road users are.
>>
>> I don't know what your definition of 'barging' is, but considerate usage shouldn't be a
>> problem...unless of course some would wish to keep them all to themselves.
S 59 1 (a) refers to a vehicle being driven in contravention of a prohibition on off road driving.
|
The officer who 'issued' the 59 stated that it only applied to me and the car I was in at the time. Now I find that very strange and would have thought that it applied to me and any vehicle in which I might be driving. Your view please Iffy.
Two officers from different forces have also stated that the vehicle cannot be taken and impounded. Again your view please.
Last edited by: Martin Devon on Tue 6 Mar 12 at 13:32
|
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/59
That's the legislation on it. Blunkett brags about writing it in at the last minute into this act following complaints at his "surgery" It is a good tool if not misused.
|
|
Hi Rob. Have a look at my questions to Iffy in the post above your last one. Your views
|
|
Sec 59 1(a) to (b). There's a little 'and' in there. Even if the driving was careless you need both parts of sec1 to fulfil use of sec 59. The second part being the harassment/distress part. Can't see it in the circumstances. These little 'and' words count y'know when it comes to law. The reason it's there (the 'and' word) is to provide the additional powers beyond those available for plain old careless driving. Or in other words, carelss driving without the distress/annoyance part would simply be a normal report for summons for the offence itself.
|
Martin Devon's "bad boy" experience - MD
