Give him a medal
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Speeding - a few questions
Next: Smartcom 12s relay?
From: David Taylor on 15 Aug 2006 07:03 On 2006-08-15, Lumpy <spamcage(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Alex Heney wrote: > >> It is criminal damage, even if he did have the "excuse" of having seen >> the people using a mobile, which he knew the police would do nothing >> about. > > If the man ia accusing those people of using phones whilst driving, I > would say the police have a duty to investigate, and to serve those > idiots with the apporpriate punishment. How are they supposed to investigate? Where will there be any evidence of the victims using a phone whilst driving? >> But he doesn't. He is clearly targeting people at random, and leaving >> the notes on the assumption that most people will have used a mobile >> in their car at some time. >> >> One of the people targeted doesn't even *own* a mobile phone. > > Just because someone says they don't OWN a phone doesn't mean they > didn't USE one. I don't own a car, but I drive one. It is for the > police to ascertain whether the targetting is random or not. We can't > judge just because someone says they don't own a phone. Nope. It is for the police to investigate who is committing acts of criminal damage and arrest them. -- David Taylor
From: David Taylor on 15 Aug 2006 07:03 On 2006-08-15, Lumpy <spamcage(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Alex Heney wrote: > >> It is criminal damage, even if he did have the "excuse" of having seen >> the people using a mobile, which he knew the police would do nothing >> about. > > If the man ia accusing those people of using phones whilst driving, I > would say the police have a duty to investigate, and to serve those > idiots with the apporpriate punishment. How are they supposed to investigate? Where will there be any evidence of the victims using a phone whilst driving? >> But he doesn't. He is clearly targeting people at random, and leaving >> the notes on the assumption that most people will have used a mobile >> in their car at some time. >> >> One of the people targeted doesn't even *own* a mobile phone. > > Just because someone says they don't OWN a phone doesn't mean they > didn't USE one. I don't own a car, but I drive one. It is for the > police to ascertain whether the targetting is random or not. We can't > judge just because someone says they don't own a phone. Nope. It is for the police to investigate who is committing acts of criminal damage and arrest them. -- David Taylor
From: David Taylor on 15 Aug 2006 07:22 On 2006-08-15, R. Mark Clayton <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > Well they could always start by issuing themselves with FPN's whenever they > use their push to talk half duplex personal radios while driving and it > isn't an emergency - but oops I forgot it is one law for them and another > law for the rest of us see:- Er, no. As you quoted below it is the same law for them and us. It is entirely legal for a police officer to use a two-way radio whilst driving, just as it is entirely legal for _you_ to use a two-way radio whilst driving. -- David Taylor
From: R. Mark Clayton on 15 Aug 2006 07:46 "David Taylor" <davidt-news(a)yadt.co.uk> wrote in message news:slrnee3bjl.s06.davidt-news(a)outcold.yadt.co.uk... > On 2006-08-15, R. Mark Clayton <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> Well they could always start by issuing themselves with FPN's whenever >> they >> use their push to talk half duplex personal radios while driving and it >> isn't an emergency - but oops I forgot it is one law for them and another >> law for the rest of us see:- > > Er, no. As you quoted below it is the same law for them and us. > > It is entirely legal for a police officer to use a two-way radio whilst > driving, just as it is entirely legal for _you_ to use a two-way radio > whilst driving. Unless it just happens to be a mobile phone. The upshot is that the police use two way half duplex radio (therefore you have to press to talk) all the time, whereas if you use your full duplex radio phone the very same police officer who has just PNC'ed your vehicle over the radio while following you will give you a ticket. > > -- > David Taylor
From: Brimstone on 15 Aug 2006 07:59
R. Mark Clayton wrote: > "David Taylor" <davidt-news(a)yadt.co.uk> wrote in message > news:slrnee3bjl.s06.davidt-news(a)outcold.yadt.co.uk... >> On 2006-08-15, R. Mark Clayton <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>> >>> Well they could always start by issuing themselves with FPN's >>> whenever they >>> use their push to talk half duplex personal radios while driving >>> and it isn't an emergency - but oops I forgot it is one law for >>> them and another law for the rest of us see:- >> >> Er, no. As you quoted below it is the same law for them and us. >> >> It is entirely legal for a police officer to use a two-way radio >> whilst driving, just as it is entirely legal for _you_ to use a >> two-way radio whilst driving. > > Unless it just happens to be a mobile phone. > > The upshot is that the police use two way half duplex radio > (therefore you have to press to talk) all the time, whereas if you > use your full duplex radio phone the very same police officer who has > just PNC'ed your vehicle over the radio while following you will give > you a ticket. And? |