Points on Licence

spen666

NapoleonD wrote:

Still awaiting an apology...

An apology for what?

I apologise for pointing out that your knowledge of the law is woefully inadequate

Anonymous

Spen, it appears that you have ignored what has been said. You called me ignorant. I'm not ignorant, I went by what was said on the POLICE NATIONAL LEGAL DATABASE. I looked into it further and posted what I found later. How on earth is that ignorant on my part? I've actually passed my law exams at both Sergeant and Inspector level and Pedal Cycles on the motorway, funnily enough, didn't come up. Things like serious assaults, burglary, drink driving, sexual offences and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act did. I know what I think is more important.

Everyone makes mistakes, I could only go by what information I have in front of me when I researched the matter. Penalties for a pedal cyclist on the Motorway are somewhat down in the list of priorities when it comes to day to day legal knowledge of an officer. Particularly in my department. Particularly when the Motorways in England are policed by specialist departments.

I have never happened upon a pedal cyclist on the motor way. The PNLD stated that for prohibited traffic on the motorway, the penalty was Obligatory endorsement and a fine which could be issued by way of endorseable FPN. It listed amongst the prohibited traffic guess what? Pedal Cycles.

Practically, if I was to deal with an offence rather than give 'advice' and I was unsure if it was a FPN offence, then I would report them for summons rather than issue a fixed penalty.

Spen, why is lack of knowledge of Pedal cycle legislation on a motorway woefully inadequate?

I tried to help the OP out on this thread and I succeeded. Don't stick your irrelevant oar in with insults.

spen666

NapoleonD wrote:

Spen, it appears that you have ignored what has been said. You called me ignorant. I'm not ignorant, I went by what was said on the POLICE NATIONAL LEGAL DATABASE. I looked into it further and posted what I found later. How on earth is that ignorant on my part? I've actually passed my law exams at both Sergeant and Inspector level and Pedal Cycles on the motorway, funnily enough, didn't come up. Things like serious assaults, burglary, drink driving, sexual offences and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act did. I know what I think is more important.

Everyone makes mistakes, I could only go by what information I have in front of me when I researched the matter. Penalties for a pedal cyclist on the Motorway are somewhat down in the list of priorities when it comes to day to day legal knowledge of an officer. Particularly in my department. Particularly when the Motorways in England are policed by specialist departments.

I have never happened upon a pedal cyclist on the motor way. The PNLD stated that for prohibited traffic on the motorway, the penalty was Obligatory endorsement and a fine which could be issued by way of endorseable FPN. It listed amongst the prohibited traffic guess what? Pedal Cycles.

Practically, if I was to deal with an offence rather than give 'advice' and I was unsure if it was a FPN offence, then I would report them for summons rather than issue a fixed penalty.

Spen, why is lack of knowledge of Pedal cycle legislation on a motorway woefully inadequate?

I tried to help the OP out on this thread and I succeeded. Don't stick your irrelevant oar in with insults.

As I said before, you are ignorant of the correct legal position as you are posting things that are not correct. Whether that is because the PNLD is wrong or because you have misunderstood the law doesn't change the fact it is wrong what you posted. Remember that the PNLD is merely an interpreatation of the law, and not the law itself. the PNLD may well be wrong.

I would be interested where exactly on the PNLD you got the wrong information. Perhaps you would raise this with me in a PM. I will take this up further with the powers that be if the PNLD is giving wrong information.

I understand what is more important also. However you made a bland assertion that you can get an endorsement for cycling offences. If the position is that you do not know the legal position, then you should not be making such assertions of fact. If you have looked the position up, then you should know the position and it is irrelevant that burglary etc is more important. You cannot have it both ways, either you know the position having looked it up, or you don't as its not important. You are arguing against yourself here.


What is woefully inadequate is pontificating on here what the law is when the knowledge is lacking. I was however also thinking of the officers in D&G purporting to enforce laws they clearly do not understand properly.

You only helped the OP by confusing the situation and giving WRONG legal advice.

Your intentions may have been good, but you have simply confused the issue by your wrong advice.

I note what you say re the prohibited traffic on the motorway on the PNLD, andif this is wghat you were refering to, then I will check the PNLD tomorrow and get back to you on this.

Irrelevant? If giving ACCURATE and CORRECT advice is irrelevant in the view of a police officer, then we are in a very sorry situation in this country.

Anonymous

All I will say on this point is that I gave advice best on what information I had before me. When that I found that information to be incorrect I posted what I found to be correct.

If you have a problem with that then there's nowt I can do about it.

'on the road', that's just offensive.

Oh. You deleted it. What a surprise. For the record, 'on the road' posted that 'all coppers are dumb.'

on the road

It's true. Be thankfull I didn't call you something else!

Anonymous

I am, ta. I was dreading what you were going to come up with next there Colin.

Mithras

For Spen: Are you having a bad week at work or something?

Napoleons clarifying post. Spenn I came to the same original conclusion and you know me I don't generally Post rubbish. If Napoleon had to do some digging with his superior knowledge and experience (compared to me) and then posted the correct answer then that is a good thing. The fact that he was prepared to spend time looking for the answer to the benefit of this forum to prove himself (and me) is pretty damned good in my eyes. So get down off your high horse your argument was null and void before you started.

NapoleonD wrote:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah,

Clarified this now by delving into the annals of traffic law wisdom on the Police National Legal Database, hidden away in some dusty corner. (I'm not kidding, it's taken me ages to find it, but I kept plugging away because it was so ridiculous...)

It took some finding!

If you look at the standard wording of the offence it includes pedal cycles etc...

However if you look at it specifically for each type (which isn't linked to and doesn't come up on a search...)

Pedestrians, horse drawn carts, hand drawn carts and pedal cycles -

Non-endorsable 30 quid ticket or fine up to lvl 4 from court if it gets that bad.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense but by jove why is this stuff so hard to find???

Phew, there is some sense!

spen666

Mithras wrote:

For Spen: Are you having a bad week at work or something?

Napoleons clarifying post. Spenn I came to the same original conclusion and you know me I don't generally Post rubbish. If Napoleon had to do some digging with his superior knowledge and experience (compared to me) and then posted the correct answer then that is a good thing. The fact that he was prepared to spend time looking for the answer to the benefit of this forum to prove himself (and me) is pretty damned good in my eyes. So get down off your high horse your argument was null and void before you started.

NapoleonD wrote:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah,

Clarified this now by delving into the annals of traffic law wisdom on the Police National Legal Database, hidden away in some dusty corner. (I'm not kidding, it's taken me ages to find it, but I kept plugging away because it was so ridiculous...)

It took some finding!

If you look at the standard wording of the offence it includes pedal cycles etc...

However if you look at it specifically for each type (which isn't linked to and doesn't come up on a search...)

Pedestrians, horse drawn carts, hand drawn carts and pedal cycles -

Non-endorsable 30 quid ticket or fine up to lvl 4 from court if it gets that bad.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense but by jove why is this stuff so hard to find???

Phew, there is some sense!

Standard wording for WHAT OFFENCE?

If you look at the relevant legislation you will find there are NO ENDORSEABLE CYCLING OFFENCES

You have failed to specify any ioffence in your post and are simply making bland and legally incorrect statements.

As I said before please specify just one single cycling offence that is endorseable

Anonymous

Spen, have you actually read through this thread?

I stated earlier in the thread that there isn't an endorsement for pedal cycling offences after looking further into it on the PNLD, despite being told to the contrary by an employee of teh Central Ticket Office and the first impression I garnered on the PNLD.

The offence I have been talking about is the one this whole thread is specifically about!

Excluded traffic on a special road

Stewie Griffin

spen666 wrote:

What is woefully inadequate is pontificating on here what the law is when the knowledge is lacking. I was however also thinking of the officers in D&G purporting to enforce laws they clearly do not understand properly.

Designer Label uniforms for the Police now is it? No wonder the Country is going to pot.

spen666

NapoleonD wrote:

Spen, have you actually read through this thread?

I stated earlier in the thread that there isn't an endorsement for pedal cycling offences after looking further into it on the PNLD, despite being told to the contrary by an employee of teh Central Ticket Office and the first impression I garnered on the PNLD.

The offence I have been talking about is the one this whole thread is specifically about!

Excluded traffic on a special road

That is NOT an endorseable offence for a cyclist.

I will look it up on the PNLD and see if that is wrong

spen666

Hmmm, Now looking on the PNLD gives an interesting picture


There is a specific section with the title

TITLE Excluded traffic on a special road - pedal cycle

OFFENCE WORDING On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..), while riding a pedal cycle went or remained on a part of a special road, namely **(..SPECIFY THE SPECIAL ROAD AND LOCATION..), when you were not a class of traffic authorised to use that road

Now here is the bit that our boys in blue seem to find hard to understand. The penalty section which states

PENALTY A fine not exceeding level four on the standard scale.

Fixed penalty ticket - thirty pounds.

Time limit for prosecutions:
6 months

Now can you see where it says the offence is endorseable? A fine not exceeding level four is what it says, a fine, not an endorsement on your driving licence

A Fixed penalty ticket- notice, not an endorseable fixed penalty ticket




Now compare that with what the PNLD says about using a vehicle on such a road ie a vehicle that is not allowed on a special road

TITLE Excluded traffic on a special road - vehicular
OFFENCE WORDING On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..) used on a special road, namely **(..SPECIFY THE SPECIAL ROAD AND LOCATION..), a vehicle, namely **(..SPECIFY VEHICLE MAKE AND INDEX NUMBER - IF APPLICABLE..), which was not a class of traffic authorised for use on that road


PENALTY A fine not exceeding level four on the standard scale.

Obligatory endorsement - licence endorsed three penalty points. Discretionary disqualification.

Fixed penalty ticket - sixty pounds..

Time limit for prosecutions:
6 months

Now i'm sure the very observant amongst you may notice that under penalty here, it says that there is an obligatory endorsement



Now Napoleon, how hard were those inspector exams? clearly they do not concentrate on understanding and interpretating the law.

Anonymous

Obviously :roll:


In the vehicular wording it states that vehicles that would apply include pedal cycles. I tell you what I am just going round in circles. I just really don't understand your reason for babbling on. I clearly admitted I was wrong and posted what was correct. I will no longer respond on this matter. I did this trying to help, for which I was thanked, in my own time. I have too much to do with wife, kids, hobbies and work to listen to your self important ramblings.

spen666

NapoleonD wrote:

Obviously :roll:


In the vehicular wording it states that vehicles that would apply include pedal cycles. I tell you what I am just going round in circles. I just really don't understand your reason for babbling on. I clearly admitted I was wrong and posted what was correct. I will no longer respond on this matter. I did this trying to help, for which I was thanked, in my own time. I have too much to do with wife, kids, hobbies and work to listen to your self important ramblings.

If you use the PNLD as intended, you wouldn't be wrong in what you post on here.

Why are you looking under the vehicle section when there is a section specifically in relation to this offence for pedal cycles

You have completely misunderstood what you have read. A pedal cycle is included in the definition of a vehicle for the purpose of committing the offence, but the penalties are different for motorised and non motorised traffic. If you looked up the right section of the PNLD, then you have a better chance of getting it right

simple_salmon

Dear Napolean

Please stop making mistakes; you are letting yourself and your family down, not to mention all cyclists and policemen.

You really must try harder or it will be detention for you.

biondino

If I were spen I'd be paying any unpaid parking tickets, checking my brake lights and avoiding situations in which deep cavity searches are a possibility

I'd also apologise for being an ABUSIVE TOOL whose attitude and respect towards others is woeful. You've probably got a doctor's certificate that excuses you for whatever the f*ck is wrong with your personality but seriously, take a look at yourself. You're just offensive.

spen666

biondino wrote:

If I were spen I'd be paying any unpaid parking tickets, checking my brake lights and avoiding situations in which deep cavity searches are a possibility

I'd also apologise for being an ABUSIVE TOOL whose attitude and respect towards others is woeful. You've probably got a doctor's certificate that excuses you for whatever the f*ck is wrong with your personality but seriously, take a look at yourself. You're just offensive.

i'm glad you are happy for police officers to be throwing their weight around claiming they know the law when in fact they are completely wrong.

I'm slightly worried by the fact that: -
a) the D&G officers purportedly issue punishments they have no power to issue and which are in fact ultra vires
b) we have other officers on here who claim to have looked the law up on the police national database and still they don't understand it. Its not rocket science to read the word endorseable when it refers to motor vehicles and notice there is no mention of endorsement when it refers to pedal cycles onm the PNLD
c) people don't seem to realise the abusive relationship there is between the police and the public, especially now the police can be judge, jury and executioner with the fixed penalty type offences. If we don't take the police to task when they are clearly wrong, then what hope is there for the average punter in the street when police exercise these summary punishment powers

spen666

biondino wrote:

...

I'd also apologise for being an ABUSIVE TOOL whose attitude and respect towards others is woeful. You've probably got a doctor's certificate that excuses you for whatever the f*ck is wrong with your personality but seriously, take a look at yourself. You're just offensive.

The only person on here being abusive is you.

downfader

spen666 wrote:

biondino wrote:

...

I'd also apologise for being an ABUSIVE TOOL whose attitude and respect towards others is woeful. You've probably got a doctor's certificate that excuses you for whatever the f*ck is wrong with your personality but seriously, take a look at yourself. You're just offensive.

The only person on here being abusive is you.

No. You chose to break down every last sentance of what ND wrote and put in superfluous detail that was nothing to do with what he had found in the end. You know that the law is a vast tool and that he wont be able to keep every minutae (sp?) on the tip of his tongue let alone be able to remember it.

As for police throwing their weight around, what has that got to do with ND? Frankly he's gone out of his way to find out some info that might benefit a very select group - hardly the actions of someone who wants to bully others.

Sometimes you can be a valuable member of this forum, but here you've decended into bullying. :roll:

ellieb

+1

spen666

downfader wrote:

spen666 wrote:

biondino wrote:

...

I'd also apologise for being an ABUSIVE TOOL whose attitude and respect towards others is woeful. You've probably got a doctor's certificate that excuses you for whatever the f*ck is wrong with your personality but seriously, take a look at yourself. You're just offensive.

The only person on here being abusive is you.

No. You chose to break down every last sentance of what ND wrote and put in superfluous detail that was nothing to do with what he had found in the end. You know that the law is a vast tool and that he wont be able to keep every minutae (sp?) on the tip of his tongue let alone be able to remember it.

I fully agree with that, BUT ( and its a big but). Napoleonm, chose to
a) advise people [WRONGLY as it happens] what the law was
b) back up his advice by reminding people he is apolice officer
c) claiming the PNLD backs up his wrong advice [ it doesn't at all]

The simple position is don't advise on what you don't know.

You won't find me advising on conveyancing law for example as I do not know the law. I also go and check the law before I purport to give advice on it.

As for police throwing their weight around, what has that got to do with ND? Frankly he's gone out of his way to find out some info that might benefit a very select group - hardly the actions of someone who wants to bully others.

Frankly he has gone out of his way to mislead and wrongly advise people on the law AND use his position as a police officer to giver some form of weight to his WRONG advice.

He is claiming the police have powers that they do not have.

Sometimes you can be a valuable member of this forum, but here you've decended into bullying. :roll:

If bullying is advising people what the law actually is and not the false position being pedalled by police officers abusing their status and falsely claiming that the PNLD backs up their position, then I will happily admit to it.

bikesdontfloat

As a lawyer, Spen of course has an encyclopedic, in depth and 100% up to date knowledge of the law. From family law, through ecclesiastical, not missing out property, criminal or human rights (amongst other), encompassing all aspects of corporate law as well as entertainment, tax and immigration he knows it all.

Frankly ND it's disgraceful that police officers don't share his eidetic recall in these matters. We'll have to gloss over your disgraceful behaviour of digging deeper until you got to to the heart of the matter, that will never do. Admitting your error and putting in a correction might make a pompous ass out of someone who doesn't have the respect to read the whole thread before jumping in with both feet.

PS Just so biondino isn't the only person being offensive - just in case you were in any doubt Spen - you are a complete tool.

spen666

bikesdontfloat wrote:

As a lawyer, Spen of course has an encyclopedic, in depth and 100% up to date knowledge of the law. From family law, through ecclesiastical, not missing out property, criminal or human rights (amongst other), encompassing all aspects of corporate law as well as entertainment, tax and immigration he knows it all.

Ermm actually I regularly state on here that I do not know other areas of the law other than criminal law in detail

I also make sure that I look up the law before posting an opinion on it

Frankly ND it's disgraceful that police officers don't share his eidetic recall in these matters. We'll have to gloss over your disgraceful behaviour of digging deeper until you got to to the heart of the matter, that will never do. Admitting your error and putting in a correction might make a pompous ass out of someone who doesn't have the respect to read the whole thread before jumping in with both feet.

PS Just so biondino isn't the only person being offensive - just in case you were in any doubt Spen - you are a complete tool.

Your last comments say more about you than anything I could say.

for someone who was not part of the exchange