Close pass cyclist wrongly advised by Police.

It was very close, and fast, too!
 

Bazzer

Setting the controls for the heart of the sun.
Its never been a problem for either GMP or Cheshire police, when I've submitted footage of close passes. If I have had feedback about why action wasn't being taken, not once has my sometimes potty mouth been referenced.
 
The article seem to suggest that it is a grey area and to let Police know what CPS said. It is not. No offence is wiped out by a victim's conduct or victim committing another offence. That Police Officer deliberately lied and should be disciplined. Just lazy.

The bigger challenge and grey area is convincing them and CPS to prosecute close passes.
 

Drago

Flouncing Nobber
Location
Poshshire
I've seen footage of riot police with shields and big sticks swearing at protestors, but they will use foul language as an excuse to act against the same protestors. Police need to check themselves.
Tac-Comms, matching the language and delivery to the moment. Politely saying "I say say would you mind awfully..." in a conversqtional drawl won't get results in a tactical situstion. You need some understanding of both the law and approved operational methodology before making such judgements.

As regards the OP, its not a barrier to prosecution per se, but it does undermine the witnesses credibility. In, say, a fight where people may be making counter-accusations about being provoked, that may be enough to bin the case off. In the case of our cyclist friend it's far from desirable but I can't see how it materially affects the actual case.

However, and it's a big however, the defence may question early doors why their client is being prosecuted for whatever they have (allegedly) done, yet the cyclist is not being knocked off for a S.4a public order offence - that would be a fair question to ask, the pplice and CPS are supposed to treat all equally without fear or favour, and unless the case is quite serious its probably best to try and avoid a scenario where they also have to caution/prosecute (eligibility for either being dependent upon their previous record and any admission) the victim in order to be able to justify prosecuting the suspect.

So the answer isn't simple - it could well go to court, but there are good reasons not to do so, and if it did there's a fair chance it would be dismissed on the first morning because the aggrieved themselves has demosntrably committed offences and is being treated more favourably by not being made to account for their own behaviour. I'm not intimately familiar with this case, and even if I wanted to be we have only one version of events, but my best guess is the police are looking at whether is reasonable and proportionate to spend respurces on the matter then the outcome is so uncertain. Unkess its something really meaty, such as a homicide, terrorism, tape, etc, it is then difficult to justify doing so.

Moral of the story - behave like a prat, gob off, swear, even thump them if you really feel the need (I don't recommend that, BTW) but if you feel so aggrieved that you want the matter to progress as far as a prosecution then you greatly undermine the chances of that actually happening, and even open yourself up to counter-allegations and even prosecution. Either don't do it, or smile sweetly for the camera as you give them the w****r sign out of camera view.
 
Last edited:
OP
Cycleops

Cycleops

Legendary Member
Location
Accra, Ghana
That Police Officer deliberately lied and should be disciplined. Just lazy.
Or poorly trained? Could it be different forces have different rules which govern if they prosecute or not? Whatever I can see the validity of @Drago 's point regarding the prospect of securing a conviction. Is it the case that if the motorist coughs to the offence there is no need for him to attend court?
 

winjim

✊🏻✊🏾 🌈 ♀️ 😷
Tac-Comms, matching the language and delivery to the moment. Politely saying "I say say would you mind awfully..." in a conversqtional drawl won't get results in a tactical situstion. You need some understanding of both the law and approved operational methodology before making such judgements.
If it's acceptable for police to swear at protestors then it is acceptable for protestors to swear at police. If it is not acceptable for protestors to swear at police then it is not acceptable for police to swear at protestors.

That's it. Full stop. There is nothing else to be said on the issue. Except...

It is arguably unacceptable for police to swear under any circumstances, regardless of the acceptability of other people swearing, since they are supposed to have the training and discipline, and they are the ones with the big sticks and shields, and therefore hold the balance of power. And if they're going to suggest that it is unacceptable for a startled cyclist subjected to a dangerous pass to get a bit sweary, then I don't want to hear another copper swear ever.
 

HMS_Dave

Grand Old Lady
Location
Midlands
the defence may question early doors why their client is being prosecuted for whatever they have (allegedly) done, yet the cyclist is not being knocked off for a S.4a public order offence - that would be a fair question to ask, the pplice and CPS are supposed to treat all equally without fear or favour
Not a chance the defence would go down that route.

"It is a defence for the accused to prove

(a)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(b)that his conduct was reasonable"

"Reasonable" would be the cyclist claiming his life was in danger as the car speeds too close past him, undertaking the vehicle ahead... The very reason he would be in court in the first place...
 
Last edited:

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
I’ve had this nonsense attempted on me a while back and told the cop he was talking bollox.
Swearing reactively at almost being wiped out by a speeding driver is evidence of the fear, shock and alarm experienced. It’s not anywhere near a public order offence.

It has no bearing on a crime or offence already committed by someone else.
 
Top Bottom