Police stopping cyclists in Preston

[Crankarm]

However, as your "above points" had no basis in fact, repeating them gives them even less credibility.

Hmm... "dreaming up your own criteria" seems to be an appropriate comment from someone who considers that the police have approached this with a presumption of guilt.

Come Norm of all the posters on here I credit you with being one of the more rational and logical and would be able to understand the finer points .

 

[Crankarm]

[QUOTE 1576708"]
I was deliberately hit from behind, with two witnesses. I called the Police, who visited me, identified the driver, his address, phone number everything. The witnesses addresses were handed over, one of them lived 750m from the Police station. How long did it take it take them to go and get a statement?
a. 2 hours
b. 2 days
c. 2 months
d. it's been 2 years, and they have never been around

No prizes, it was decided by the twat officer in charge of the case that no further action was needed. He closed the file, and retired!

When I started kicking up a fuss after 2 months, I was bounced around the system, until I emailed the Chief Constable. Then all of a sudden, action, action, action, an Insepctor called, she said she would deal with the case personally, then rang back and said she couldn't as the file had gone missing, she said she would ring me back, I'm still waiting 17 months later.

In the spirit of the 80s, some of my best mates are coppers, but in my experience, the majority are not the slightest bit interested in evenly dealing with the public. I have seen local coppers on the phone while driving, park in ASLs and ignore similar offences from other drivers. Now though they are stopping cyclists to check if they own the bike. Is there a similar initiative to 'prevent car crime'? Numptys.
[/quote]

User76 seems like a typical happy police "customer", not.

 

[screenman]

I suggest User76 should have got control earlier and not let it run for years, his lack of interest was as bad as the police if it is true. One side of story and all that.

 

[Crankarm]

When my Brompton was stolen the police didn't want to know. They weren't interested. It took endless calls to even get a crime number out of them, but fortunately dealing with my insurers was a doddle compared to the fuzz. My premium went up slightly though :~(.

Without getting drawn into an argument here and i respect your views but if the Police had taken the initiative earlier to stop check cyclists without fear of us all screaming persecutation then maybe,just maybe they might've stopped the scum that stole your bike and returned it to you and your premiums would'nt have risen.Would you then have in all honesty had the same opinion you have now about stop checks?
.

You don't seem to able to grasp two totally different concepts 1) the police investigating specific alleged offences where property ie a bicycle(s) has/have been stolen, and 2) instead implementing their own broad brush policy to catch bike thieves by apprehending all cyclists selecting those with bicycles they consider to be suspicious. Where riders cannot prove that they own the bike to the police officer's or penguin's satisfaction the cyclist will be detained and if the officer so feels, arrest for theft or handling stolen goods.

There are 2 very different approaches. Approach number 1) I don't have a problem with, but approach 2) I think has been adopted as the police are lazy and under resourced to investigate specific cases of actual bike theft, so their top brass have come up with this daft plan to blitz any cyclist demanding they prove ownership, but if the poor cyclist can't then it's "You are nicked mate!"

I would like to know the exact criteria they will use to determine whether they "pull" a cyclist or not.

Maybe I should put on my knackered trainers, baggy holed jeans and hoody sweatshirt, baseball cap, i-pod and go out on my Brompton, set the saddle really low and see what happens ................. Preston is a long way though .

Remember it was police incompetence, prejudice, ignorance, poor communication and trigger happy armed officers that shot dead Jean Charles de Menezes under the guise of protecting the wider population from terrorists.

Of course the police have never arrested the wrong person ever before, or falsely imprisoned any one or conspired in miscarriages of justice.

 

[doog]

You don't seem to able to grasp two totally different concepts 1) the police investigating specific alleged offences where property ie a bicycle(s) has/have been stolen, and 2) instead implementing their own broad brush policy to catch bike thieves by apprehending those cyclists with bicycles they consider to be suspicious and where they can prove that they own the bike to the police officer's or penguin's satisfaction they will be detained and arrested for theft or handling stolen goods.

There are 2 very different approaches. I think approach 2) had been adopted as the police are lazy and under resourced to investigate cases of actual bike theft so the top brass have come up with this daft plan to blitz any cyclist demanding they prove ownership, but if the poor cyclist can't then "You are nicked mate!"

Remember it was police incompetence, prejudice, ignorance, poor communication and trigger happy armed officers that lshot dead Jean Charles de Menezes under the guise of protecting the wider population from terrorists.

Of course the police have never arrested the wrong person ever before, or falsely imprisoned any one or conspired in miscarriages of justice.

oh my bleeding heart. This poster manages to draw comparison with a low key neighbourhood operation and Jean Charles de Menezes.


it just gets better

 

[diapason]

Quite right, Crankarm. And, in the same way, as a driver, I object to being randomly stopped around Christmas on the off chance that I might have been drinking. Fair enough, if I was weaving all over the road or otherwise committing driving offences, but simply to be stopped and interrogated because I'm the xth number along that road is harrassment.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I feel it would be worth 60,000,000 people being stopped for one nicked person, however you might not know this but a lot fewer than 60,000,000 people drive in the UK, I know when you are stuck in a traffic jam it might seem like it but in reality there are far fewer.

Now I am sure there maybe police officers that match your description, however maybe some people bring out the worst in others.

As for low expectations, please do enlighten us all with what you would expect of the police should do to meet your expectations.

Please I just read you signature, you are not a scoutmaster are you? mine was a right nasty vindictive power crazy sadist.

Where would you like to start?

If you want to see 60,000,000 detained to find one criminal , then I would suggest you are either indulging in hyperbole or you haven't really considered the problem.

There doesn't need to be 60,000,000 drivers to have 60,000,000 people stopped.

There are police that match my descprition , but whether some people bring out the worst in others is irrelevant , unless of course you have some method of keeping the two elements apart?

What do I expect of the police to meet my expectations? Very little.

I'm not a Scoutmaster, I have never been a member of the BSA, my views would be far to libertarian for them.

 

[screenman]

Not all drunks weave all over the road, how would you suggest they find drunk drivers?

I honestly feel that you objectors have no answer other than objecting. Not once have any of you suggested an alternative method of apprehending criminal.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Quite right, Crankarm. And, in the same way, as a driver, I object to being randomly stopped around Christmas on the off chance that I might have been drinking. Fair enough, if I was weaving all over the road or otherwise committing driving offences, but simply to be stopped and interrogated because I'm the xth number along that road is harrassment.

Ahh but don't forget you aren't being "randomly stopped" for a breath test, because the police don't have the power to do that!

You might however be stopped for a "document check" and then asked for a breath test... Or that old favourite, the "flickering tail light" , that magically " Seems OK now Sir!, but by the way , have you been drinking?"

Does anyone want to take the time to explain to concept of mission creep?

 

[doog]

I'm not a Scoutmaster, I have never been a member of the BSA, my views would be far to libertarian for them.

as someone else who has asked you about this can you explain your sig? As a father of three I find the fact that you may have anything to do with scouting rather disturbing.

 

[diapason]

They find drunk drivers by being alert and noticing erratic driving patters and/or pop into busy pubs in the course of their patrolling and note any drunks who may be likely to drive. In the same way, they catch bike (and other) thieves by patrolling the beat. Above all, they should respond promptly and urgently to reported crimes, not leaving it hours/days to turn up. I do speak from bitter experience. I reported a suspected burglary - lights on and a van outside a neighbour's house when the owners were on holiday. Ringing 999 from Somerset, I was connected to a control room in SCOTLAND and asked whether I could actually see intruders in the house. They told me that they would not respond unless I walked across the fields to the empty house and looked through the windows to see if a crime was 'in progress'. I have had other similar experiences when reporting crimes, hence my scepticism.

 

[Norm]

You don't seem to able to grasp two totally different concepts 1) the police investigating specific alleged offences where property ie a bicycle(s) has/have been stolen, and 2) instead implementing their own broad brush policy to catch bike thieves by apprehending all cyclists selecting those with bicycles they consider to be suspicious. Where riders cannot prove that they own the bike to the police officer's or penguin's satisfaction the cyclist will be detained and if the officer so feels, arrest for theft or handling stolen goods.

For reference:

well judging by most of the comments not many of you have ever been stopped by the police when they're keeping their eye out for a stolen bike. It goes something like this...


Policeman: "Hello sir, without looking at your bike, can you tell me what make or model it is?"

Me on my bike: "Yeah its a blah blah blah."

Policeman: "OK Cheers."

or alternatively...

Policeman: "Hello sir, without looking at your bike, can you tell me what make or model it is?"

Me on a bike: "Er... no... i er.... just borrowed it off a mate... um"

Policeman would then ask you to step off the bike whilst he/she asks who your 'mate' is, etc...



it's really not worth getting your knickers in a twist over.

It is unlikely that any weapons would be drawn in the performance of this operation.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Not all drunks weave all over the road, how would you suggest they find drunk drivers?

I honestly feel that you objectors have no answer other than objecting. Not once have any of you suggested an alternative method of apprehending criminal.

1) I don't need to have answer, I just want to be left alone.
2) Did you miss the suggestions futher up the thread that were poo pooed by the police members here as too much trouble?

I haven't got a great deal of time for politicians, but parliment has decided that the police should not have the power for random breath tests. If you have a problem with that decision then take it up with those that make the laws, don't cheer on those that push the boundaries of what they are allowed to do. Either you believe in laws or you don't, you can't dip in and out of them when it's convienient.

 

[Crankarm]

Not all drunks weave all over the road, how would you suggest they find drunk drivers?

I honestly feel that you objectors have no answer other than objecting. Not once have any of you suggested an alternative method of apprehending criminal.

Right your bike is stolen tonight. Tommorrow morning you discover it is missing and report it to your local plod with all the salient details.

You expect or even demand that plod investigate it's theft.

Do they collect evidence and then investigate according to the evidence they have ie description of your bike, finger prints at scene of break in and other evidence .............

or ......... do they round up all the cyclists in local area take them to the town central square, line them up and ask them all to individually prove ownership of their bicycles, even if the stolen bike they are looking for is NOT amongst them? Those who cannot prove ownership of their bicycles are carted away and charged with theft. Seems a very broad totalitarian, brutal way to investigate a specific offence of bike theft. This is the sort of thing that happens in bleak police states.

It is my impression that the over riding feeling in this country is that people shall not be falsely accused, have a right to a fair trial, are presumed to be innocent rather than guilty and are not falsely imprisoned.

The police have to act within the law and should not exceed their powers. It is parliament that makes legislation not the police and the courts are the guardians of the law. I feel this "initiative" would only need a test case to show it was unlawful.

Have you heard of habeus corpus?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

as someone else who has asked you about this can you explain your sig? As a father of three I find the fact that you may have anything to do with scouting rather disturbing.

If you are that disturbed, I suggest you contact Gilwell Park.