From: David Taylor on 15 Aug 2006 08:33
On 2006-08-15, R. Mark Clayton <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> "David Taylor" <davidt-news(a)yadt.co.uk> wrote in message
>> On 2006-08-15, R. Mark Clayton <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> Well they could always start by issuing themselves with FPN's whenever
>>> 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.
So? It's still the same law for them as us. If they'd PNC'ed my vehicle
over a mobile phone, they'd be breaking the law. If I'd been using a
non-prohibited radio they couldn't give me a ticket (except, possibly,
From: John B on 15 Aug 2006 08:52
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:06:38 +0100, Dave M <me2(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> >More than 20 motorists in Hampshire have fallen victim to a mystery
> >vigilante who appears to target drivers spotted using mobile phones.
> >All the car owners have found their tyres have been slashed and, in many
> >cases, a note on their windscreens.
> >The sinister message, made from newspaper cuttings, says the driver was
> >seen using a phone.
> >Hampshire Police are investigating the incidents in Gosport,
> >Lee-on-the-Solent and Stubbington.
> Give him a medal?
> He should be in prison.
> 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
Regrettably I think we are going to see more of this 'taking the law into
one's own hands' as the police do less and less in combatting low-level
crime, particularly from the law-breaking motorist who seems to be able to
kill and maim with little comeback.
IMO private security forces will soon become the norm.
From: JNugent on 15 Aug 2006 11:06
> Alex Heney wrote:
>>He should be in prison.
> As should all those pratts driving around using their mobile phones.
Can you spell "over-reaction"?
> Let's stnd them all on the fast lane of the motor way, drive at them at
> speed, and see how good they are at dogding cars whilst talking on
> their mobiles. Lapse of concentration = severe injury/death (THEIRS,
> not an innocent road user's)
>>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
> 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.
Let him walk into a police station, identify himself as a witness (giving
the police his name, date of birth and address - as all witnesses do) and
then proceed to make his allegations.
Until he does that, he's just a criminal. Though he'll still be a criminal
after he's done it.
>>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.
What a weird sense of priorities you have. You choose to disbelieve the
word of the victim and to believe the allegations of an anonymous nutter
who is committing criminal damage (the legal equivalent of theft).
From: MrBitsy on 15 Aug 2006 11:40
David Taylor wrote:
> 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?
That is a good point - if we all had a little more gumption, we could take
videos of the idiots who insist on using a mobile while driving.
From: MrBitsy on 15 Aug 2006 11:41
> What a weird sense of priorities you have. You choose to disbelieve
> the word of the victim and to believe the allegations of an anonymous
> nutter who is committing criminal damage (the legal equivalent of
Just who is the nutter?
At least the tyre slasher is doing it when the car is stationary.