Police stopping cyclists in Preston

[Little yellow Brompton]

Thanks for being so patronising.

I didn't suggest closing anything and my suggestion to move it to the Helmet Debates section was a "tongue in cheek" remark on how contentious the subject had proved.

How unlike you to jump down someone's throat at the first opportunity.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean it to be patronising, I really was amused.,

 

[Zoiders]

So...tell us LYB...what were you arrested for, charged with and then convicted of?

 

[snorri]

No, if the police are suspicious they have said they WILL seize the bike until the owner can prove ownership.

Do you seriously think the police can just look at people and tell if they are 'honest' ?

Seems quite reasonable for the police to seize property they believe to be stolen.

I never suggested that police can judge degree of honesty by apppearance so don't know why you ask me that question.

 

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 1576820"]
Yes, I have read them all. I especially like your recent addition, namely that if I disagree with you, I must be a moron. I think that moves the debate on greatly I am sure you agree?

It certainly got PK rolling in the aisles anyway, but then I disagreed with him as well didn't I? Bit of a theme there eh?

Now, do you think you can carry on without the need for personal insults, or is that your default manouvere if you are disagreed with? I eagerly await the apology.
[/quote]

Asking you to prove if you were a moron or not was a response to your suggestion of getting the police to prove they are actually a policeman officer... in my mind, this a moronic suggestion.

[QUOTE 1576769"]
How about, next time you a see a copper, stop him and ask him to actually prove he's a copper? Not just his uniform and numbers, you can get them anywhere. A warrant card can easily be faked, so how does he actually prove he's a copper?

If he tries to seize your bike, resist it and beat him up, as you have no proof he is actually who he says he is. It used to happen a lot in Northern Ireland, dodgy vcp's.

It's not so easy this proof thing.
[/quote]

If a policeman officer wants to ask you a question or two and you refuse to answer any questions until you're satisfied that they are in fact a policeman officer, with you claiming their ID can easily be forged, their numbers and uniform can bought anywhere and therefore they are not proof, then you really are a moron... with a capitol M.

If, as you suggest, they do try to seize your bike and you are well within your rights to 'beat him up'... then stronger words than 'moron' would be applicable.

 

[gaz]

..as an innocent man I would expect to be able to make any journey without having to answer questions asked by the police.

How do the police know who is innocent and who isn't?

 

[PedAntics]

Do you seriously think the police can just look at people and tell if they are 'honest' ?
[/quote]

It's the swag bag that give the dishonest ones away!

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

So...tell us LYB...what were you arrested for, charged with and then convicted of?

Whether I had been or not, if the reabilitation of offenders act applied, or not, the answer would be the same to you as it would be to any police officer who had stopped me using the RTA powers. Mind your own business!

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Seems quite reasonable for the police to seize property they believe to be stolen.

Reasonable? In what sort of world is it reasonable that an officer of the state can sieze a person's property without proving that that person is guilty and that the property is stolen?
I'm really open mouthed in incredulity that so many people are happy to throw away a thousand years of law and democracy , I'm also equally gob smacked that so many people would be happy to see themselves in a situation where they would be saying " I'm innocent" and the police would be saying " prove it" It's really , really worrying that all of those people who will allow the police to act like Judge Dredd have a vote! :-(

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

How do the police know who is innocent and who isn't?

Oh that's an easy one, they presume that you are innocent , right up until the moment that a court of law decides otherwise. Of course this is time consuming and expensive , so I can see the attraction of trying to reverse the burden of proof, the attraction for the police I mean.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

That's a yes then.

No, that's a "Mind your own business", if you think that = "Yes I have a criminal record" feel free to think that. It simply shows that you shouldn't be allowed to make those sort of decisions.

 

[MontyVeda]

Oh that's an easy one, they presume that you are innocent , right up until the moment that a court of law decides otherwise.
...

I do agree with on this one LYB, however by your reckoning the police shouldn't even be approaching people they presume to be innocent and hence, nothing would ever go to court.

Without psychic powers, they have to resort to asking questions. Why is this so outrageous?

 

[snorri]

Reasonable? In what sort of world is it reasonable that an officer of the state can sieze a person's property without proving that that person is guilty and that the property is stolen?
I'm really open mouthed in incredulity that so many people are happy to throw away a thousand years of law and democracy , I'm also equally gob smacked that so many people would be happy to see themselves in a situation where they would be saying " I'm innocent" and the police would be saying " prove it" It's really , really worrying that all of those people who will allow the police to act like Judge Dredd have a vote! :-(

You are going from the sublime to the ridiculous now LyB. I think most of us realise User76 and yourself are on a wind-up mission, but you've pushed the boat out a bit too far now.

 

[Zoiders]

No, that's a "Mind your own business", if you think that = "Yes I have a criminal record" feel free to think that. It simply shows that you shouldn't be allowed to make those sort of decisions.

I don't make that decision the courts do old chap, if the rozzers are doing a sweep for stolen bikes it is perfectly reasonable for them to stop cyclists, just like they do with safety checks for cyclists as well from time to time.

Would you try and blaze through a road block if they were doing vehicle spot checks as well?

We don't live in a police state - that's just a fiddle fantasy for the paranoid.

The last person I encountered with such a paranoid attitude about being stopped by the police had just been done for threatening a woman driver with a screwdriver.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I do agree with on this one LYB, however by your reckoning the police shouldn't even be approaching people they presume to be innocent and hence, nothing would ever go to court.

Without psychic powers, they have to resort to asking questions. Why is this so outrageous?

I have never said that the police shoudn't be questioning suspects , however the presumption that they can and will confiscate property unless they are satisfied turns justice on it's head and blows a hole in every safeguard put in place over the last 1,000 yrs. It's wrong, just so wrong.

 

[Zoiders]

I have never said that the police shoudn't be questioning suspects , however the presumption that they can and will confiscate property unless they are satisfied turns justice on it's head and blows a hole in every safeguard put in place over the last 1,000 yrs. It's wrong, just so wrong.

No it's not.

My MTB turned up in the hands of a bloke commuting back and forth from work, he certainly did not look suspicious but he could not provide a convincing explanation for how he came to be in possession of my bike.

The black market for stolen goods is huge and it's not just overtly dodgy people who buy them, it's just cheap and stupid people, some of whom are even keen cyclists.