PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Fined for blocking camera van
Mono
post Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 15:11
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 4 Dec 2009
Member No.: 34,185



Parked in front of camera van...
Charged with obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty...
Fined £86 plus costs and surcharge
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-...arking-15924403
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 15:11
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 16:00
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



And...


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 17:21
Post #3


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,205
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



Didn't attend court, which got him arrested, then pleaded guilty anyway. Probably advisedly since he'd have struggled to convince a court of an innocent motive in parking his van right behind the camera van, facing the wrong way, on double yellow lines with full time loading prohibitions.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldstoat
post Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 18:55
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,535
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
From: Up north
Member No.: 25,505



was it actually a police officer in the van though?


--------------------
Bridges burnt, Rubicons crossed. Parthian shots delivered, but always with style
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 23:19
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (oldstoat @ Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 18:55) *
was it actually a police officer in the van though?

Look I know people have their theories about how the money from speeding courses helps grease the wheels of justice and all that. But come on, do you really think it could have been a civvy in a van and they charged him with obstruct police anyway on the off-chance that he'd plead guilty?

Still, if he'd asked for the initial details of the prosecution case he would have known for sure, instead he decided to do a runner. Not a smart chap.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 02:06
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I was assuming it was a real police officer and not a civvy, that would enable the police to get a win when in many cases it would be harder to prove an offence when obstructing an officer isn’t an option.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slapdash
post Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 09:29
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,864
Joined: 2 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,040



If they were not a police offer would they be 'a person assisting an officer in the execution of their duty' ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 10:09
Post #8


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,205
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



I seem to remember a year or two back that the police line was something like the camera operators were exercising police powers authorised under the Police Reform Act, and that's where the obstruction came from. It was part of some publicity drive, so how much was FUD and how much real I don't know.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 11:40
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Slapdash @ Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 09:29) *
If they were not a police offer would they be 'a person assisting an officer in the execution of their duty' ?


I doubt it - the contemplation there is someone assisting an officer who is physically present at the scene.

QUOTE (Fredd @ Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 10:09) *
I seem to remember a year or two back that the police line was something like the camera operators were exercising police powers authorised under the Police Reform Act, and that's where the obstruction came from. It was part of some publicity drive, so how much was FUD and how much real I don't know.

Begs the question of “what powers did they act under prior to the PRA?” and what section of that Act covers them.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 18:34
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,333
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



QUOTE (Fredd @ Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 11:09) *
I seem to remember a year or two back that the police line was something like the camera operators were exercising police powers authorised under the Police Reform Act, and that's where the obstruction came from. It was part of some publicity drive, so how much was FUD and how much real I don't know.


There's two examples I can think of - s.46 Police Reform Act 2002 (which gets threatened sometimes), and the other example where an absolute nutter of a police officer managed to secure two convictions for s.303 Highways Act 1980 (work that one out)

But from what I can figure out, there was a copper in the back of that van.

This post has been edited by typefish: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 18:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 9 Mar 2019 - 04:53
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Just as an addenda this isn't just a fine (as per title) its a criminal conviction with implications for future employment, travel Visas (may become very relevant in 3 weeks) and so on.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldstoat
post Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 19:20
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,535
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
From: Up north
Member No.: 25,505



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 23:19) *
QUOTE (oldstoat @ Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 18:55) *
was it actually a police officer in the van though?

Look I know people have their theories about how the money from speeding courses helps grease the wheels of justice and all that. But come on, do you really think it could have been a civvy in a van and they charged him with obstruct police anyway on the off-chance that he'd plead guilty?

Still, if he'd asked for the initial details of the prosecution case he would have known for sure, instead he decided to do a runner. Not a smart chap.



I think you misunderstand. I am quite happy for anyone breaking the law to be hammered. No leeway no mercy, no remission for good behaviour, no let them out for any reason, no concurrent sentences, no oh it was only 31mph in a 30mph zone. Let the police do their job, with fewer restrictions.

So where the money goes of little or no interest to me.

But on the opposite side. The law enforcers, dont bend the rules.


--------------------
Bridges burnt, Rubicons crossed. Parthian shots delivered, but always with style
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 19:21
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (oldstoat @ Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 19:20) *
I think you misunderstand. I am quite happy for anyone breaking the law to be hammered. No leeway no mercy, no remission for good behaviour, no let them out for any reason, no concurrent sentences, no oh it was only 31mph in a 30mph zone.

The supreme court has said that doing 31 in a 30, if prosecuted, should result in an absolute discharge.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 19:43
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (oldstoat @ Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 19:20) *
...….I think you misunderstand. I am quite happy for anyone breaking the law to be hammered. No leeway no mercy, no remission for good behaviour, no let them out for any reason, no concurrent sentences, no oh it was only 31mph in a 30mph zone. Let the police do their job, with fewer restrictions.

So where the money goes of little or no interest to me.

But on the opposite side. The law enforcers, dont bend the rules.



Personally I want them to bend the rules where sensible.
And not to prosecute anyone where it is not needed, like 36 in a 30 on a quiet evening with little traffic.
Hammer those who are hammering it, who tailgate, who undertake in unsafe manner, who use mobiles when driving, MLOC, in short those who are actually a danger on the road.
Not some poor shmuck doing 80 on an empty motorway.
Apply some common sense and discretion.

As for the money side, yes, police forces (and councils enforcing PCNs) "have to" use it for traffic, road safety, can't simply stick it in the budget and use as they want.
But if a police force knows they will get 20K (or 200K or whatever) that is 20K that they do not have to allocate from elsewhere.
It's what councils do, plan on the revenue from PCNs, allocate that to traffic as they should and have that amount spare from more tradition sources to spend on schools or councillor jollies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldstoat
post Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 20:25
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,535
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
From: Up north
Member No.: 25,505



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 19:43) *
QUOTE (oldstoat @ Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 19:20) *
...….I think you misunderstand. I am quite happy for anyone breaking the law to be hammered. No leeway no mercy, no remission for good behaviour, no let them out for any reason, no concurrent sentences, no oh it was only 31mph in a 30mph zone. Let the police do their job, with fewer restrictions.

So where the money goes of little or no interest to me.

But on the opposite side. The law enforcers, dont bend the rules.



Personally I want them to bend the rules where sensible.
And not to prosecute anyone where it is not needed, like 36 in a 30 on a quiet evening with little traffic.
Hammer those who are hammering it, who tailgate, who undertake in unsafe manner, who use mobiles when driving, MLOC, in short those who are actually a danger on the road.
Not some poor shmuck doing 80 on an empty motorway.
Apply some common sense and discretion.

As for the money side, yes, police forces (and councils enforcing PCNs) "have to" use it for traffic, road safety, can't simply stick it in the budget and use as they want.
But if a police force knows they will get 20K (or 200K or whatever) that is 20K that they do not have to allocate from elsewhere.
It's what councils do, plan on the revenue from PCNs, allocate that to traffic as they should and have that amount spare from more tradition sources to spend on schools or councillor jollies.

your definition of sensible is maybe not quite the same as others. Lets see how those falsely convicted of the murder of Carl Bridgewater would feel if bending rules was considered ok.

The police no longer prosecute. Do keep up. There is now a Crown Prosecution Service

The bottom line is the job of the Police is to PREVENT crime. They do that by having a force in uniform on the streets. They bring in suspects, they then deal with and then in conjunction with the CPS charge or not



--------------------
Bridges burnt, Rubicons crossed. Parthian shots delivered, but always with style
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 20:55
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (oldstoat @ Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 20:25) *
…….your definition of sensible is maybe not quite the same as others. Lets see how those falsely convicted of the murder of Carl Bridgewater would feel if bending rules was considered ok.

The police no longer prosecute. Do keep up. There is now a Crown Prosecution Service

The bottom line is the job of the Police is to PREVENT crime. They do that by having a force in uniform on the streets. They bring in suspects, they then deal with and then in conjunction with the CPS charge or not



I'm talking about relatively minor crimes such as 36 in a 30 or 80 on an empty motorway and discretion being applied.
Not simply applying a rule that says "thou shalt nick them"
And whether or not you want to nit pick on who actually prosecutes, tis the Old Bill who process the paperwork etc, the CPS are not involved unless it gets beyond CoFP or is serious.
Or if they are involved, tis just a rubber stamp.

Wholesale use of cameras has generally brought down average speeds, long gone are the days when you could hit lane 3 at 90 plus in relative certainty that you would not be copped.
And people know it.
In that respect and by your yardstick, police are preventing crime by deploying cameras and churning out NIPs pour encourager les autres.
It has worked, average speed has dropped.
But I question what that has done for police relations or indeed for road safety.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 12:35
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,963
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



I'd suggest it's done SFA for road safety, I've read the casualty figures are on the increase. From my view as a professional driver this is due to a drop in driving standards caused by number of things. The dumbing down on the driving test with more emphasis on the use of technology instead of practical driving; the increasing use of mobile devices when driving; the lack of police on the roads meaning the MLOC membership has greatly increased; and in London the increase in private hire cars driven by people from outside the UK whose knowledge of how the UK traffic system works is minimal.

As for "blocking" camera vans, I've parked in close vicinity to camera vans in the past. the occupant has usually moved on after a short while.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 13:23
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Casualty figures aren’t on the increase, they did go up by 3% last year but have been consistent at between 1700 and 1800 a year for the last 7 years so not really dropping either. I happen to agree with your argument, so don’t devalue it with an obvious error (Erm that was easily checked). Cars are getting safer (for occupants and vulnerable users) with more enhanced safety features (such as AEB) so the rates should be coming down, the fact they aren’t suggests the driving is getting worse (that’s a superficial assumption, I don’t have the data for that).
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...o-june-2018.pdf


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 14:08
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,397
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 13:23) *
. . . . . so the rates should be coming down, the fact they aren’t
. . . . .


Do you mean the numbers are not dropping? If so, as the number of cars on the road is still rising, surely the "rate" is effectively falling? I stress that I have done very little research other than a quick Google on how many cars there are on the road.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Tue, 12 Mar 2019 - 20:48
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,963
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



I agree with your line of thinking Rookie; I was right though, casualty figures have risen but have remained fairly static for a number of years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:57
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here