Cyclist arrested and put in cells for cycling in Hampstead Park

[Nebulous]

I'm not condoning what he did, but a formal warning on your record can have a negative impact on some jobs. Is there an option to refuse a warning and go to court on it instead?

 

[Drago]

It depends what they mean by "formal warning". There really is no such thing in law for an adult. This is cycling job an offence or a non-compliance, not a recordable crime, so community resolutions etc won't apply.

I don't know what the local processes are but i suspect that for those who choose to co-operate they simply log details on their intelligence system, and issue a letter telling them the behaviour is unacceptable, so it's on the police local records but in no way forms part of any criminalr ecord or process. It might be formal in the sense that the Police have issued it, but it would hold zero legal weight. It's the sort of scheme whereby they hope the sensible and otherwise law abiding citizen may learn from the experience and not do it again. If my guess (and it is just that) is correct it wouldn't be disclosable on a CRB check, but anyone who's job relies on such things should really be a bit more conscientious about the laws they break if they're that worried.

As it happens he got incredibly lucky not to get a spell in the chokey for contempt, never mind the rest of it.

 

[Chris S]

Isn't Hampstead Heath a gay cruising area at night? Maybe he'd told his wife he was going somewhere else and didn't want her opening a formal warning letter and finding out where he'd really been.

 

[dawesome]

Cycle in the wrong place in a park-spend the night in the cells. Kill a cyclist, and..nothing:

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/cyclists-demonstrate-against-cps-and-driver-apathy

 

[Drago]

Yep, they're not called the Criminal Protection Service for nothing.

 

[subaqua]

If he's commited an offence he is lawfully obliged to give such reasonable details as a police constable (or PCSO/accredited person, depending on the infraction) may require to identify them.

The "right to remain silent" (thats an American term) applies in interview. downside is that if you exercise that right and then trot out some excuse later on then the Court may draw a negative inference from that.

not one of HMG best legal moments.

 

[screenman]

More a yob on a BSO than what I would call a cyclist. Lock him up throw away the key.

As for not giving details if stopped, big talk on a forum it is unlikely to happen in ral life.

 

[Cyclopathic]

If he's commited an offence he is lawfully obliged to give such reasonable details as a police constable (or PCSO/accredited person, depending on the infraction) may require to identify them.

The "right to remain silent" (thats an American term) applies in interview. downside is that if you exercise that right and then trot out some excuse later on then the Court may draw a negative inference from that.

Yes, sorry for that. Too much t.v. Now I think back to when I was arrested and the term the used was "you do not have to say anything but...etc". There was never any suggestion that it was a right as such.
(Incidentally I wasn't arrested for anything serious and was not prosecuted...And it was a very long time ago...And I never done it guv, honest, I was nowhere near it when it all kicked off, I was tucked up safe and sound in me bed and my girlfriend will swear blind that's the truth so it couldn't've bin me what stole all them diamonds...ooops)

 

[Cyclopathic]

I just dont get this whole refusal to give details thing, unless of course you have something to hide.

Sounds like a total pillock to me.

I don't hold with the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mantra. For one thing I don't think it is necessarily true, depending of course on circumstances.
For another thing it is quite possible that I have got something to hide. Not necessarily illegal, in fact these days very unlikely to be anything illegal but perhaps private or even embarrassing.

 

[Cyclopathic]

I agree, this excuse that some people give such as privacy concerns and that you don't want your personal information on record is garbage.
Your details are already on record and you probably give out more information to Google, Facebook and other online services in a single day then someone simply asking for your name, address, telephone number etc.

You are completely right in what you say but I think it still depends on the specific circumstances and what exactly it is one is being asked, for what purpose and by whom. Probably 99 times out of 100 I would answer questions fully and honestly but I wouldn't rule out not doing so.