Police stopping cyclists in Preston

[snorri]

[QUOTE 1576767"]
No. How about 5% of motorists being stopped and being asked the 'proof' questions, or even just 5 motorists. There would still be outrage. We are still being treated very differently.
[/quote]

The percentage of motorists outraged would be statistically insignificant, but a signifcantly large percentage of the outraged motorists would have had a jaded view of police operations prior to the incident that led to their latest bout of outrage.

 

[PK99]

[QUOTE 1576775"]
Well, according to their own website, only one had been nicked. Or are we now assuming that all of them were nicked, but the other 16 owners were lucky enough to have a picture of themselves on the bike?

I have no picture of myself on my Trek mtb, what am I to do?
[/quote]

your statement does not logically follow from what is stated on the website, which is that one bike has been returned to its owner


</h2>

">Results so far

Neighbourhood officers in the Fulwood area of Preston have already seized 17 bikes in a fortnight after suspecting them to be stolen. One seized bikes has already been returned to the rightful owner.

 

[Norm]

The original assertion...
[QUOTE 1576775"] Well, according to their own website, only one had been nicked. [/quote]

[QUOTE 1576781"] http://www.goinggoin...brings-results/

Scroll down to 'Results so far' [/quote] The supporting "evidence" which shows that not only is it from "their own website" but it says that one has been returned to its rightful owner, and offers nothing at all about whether the other 16 had been nicked or not.

[QUOTE 1576783"] Is your surety of this system starting to be shaken Norm? [/quote] TBH, Maggot, my surety of the relevance and reliability of many of your comments on this thread has been pretty uncertain but that kinda destroys any shred of surety I might have had.

 

[Crankarm]

[QUOTE 1576784"]
What do you think happened to the other 16?
[/quote]

Disappeared into the police abyss most likely. They will then materialise next spring so they can be auctioned off, a nice little earner for the plods .

 

[Norm]

[QUOTE 1576787"] What about a photo being proof of ownership Norm? [/quote] For the third time in this thread...

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.

[QUOTE 1576788"]
So, if Plod arrest 17 people, but charge 1, you would think "Well the others are guilty, but there's no evidence yet" would you?
[/quote]
Any other straw men you'd like to build and make false assertions about?

 

[PK99]

[QUOTE 1576790"]
Plod, "Is your carbon fibre Trek Madone sir, it looks like Norms"

Someone on bike who may well have nicked it "Yeah, here's a picture my mate took of me on it"

Plod "Have a nice day sir, sorry to have bothered you"
[/quote]

You should not assume that police officers are as stupid and naive as you appear to be, if you really believe what you posted.

 

[PK99]

[QUOTE 1576792"]
"Acceptable documentation regarding ownership is a receipt, a photograph of the rider on the bike seized,"

Not my words, check out the website.
[/quote]

stupid and naive were clearly appropriate terms if you are unable to recognise that the nature of the photograph would be of significance.

 

[PK99]

[QUOTE 1576794"]
Oh OK, Plod says that a picture of a person on a bike is 'proof of ownership', but I am stupid and naive? What aspects of the picture will Plod take into account then? I'm intrigued.

I work with a girl who has a really nice Canondale mtb on the CycleScheme, it has never, and will never, go off-road, so any pictures of her on it will not be in the 'context' of a mtb will they?
[/quote]

Any more space at that wall???

Some photographs would prove ownership others would not. is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

 

[doog]

Disappeared into the police abyss most likely. They will then materialise next spring so they can be auctioned off, a nice little earner for the plods .

Unless the bike can be proved to be stolen it goes back to the person it was seized from.

As for the nice little earner you will be pleased to learn that any money goes to charity and voluntary groups

http://www.gmpa.gov....ertyactfund.htm

 

[Norm]

I think it should be noted that the website might have its own agenda, as "Going Going Bike is on a mission to create the legitimate online marketplace for used bicycles".

Anyway, the website says:

We asked Lancashire Police to clarify what they termed as proof of ownership. They told us that if someone is stopped and cannot verify ownership on the spot, the bike can be seized and the person riding it will be asked to provide documents to prove ownership at a police station in order to get the bike back.

So, at the first point of contact, they to see if the rider can verify ownership on the spot, an example of which would be in MontyVeda's post above. If they can't satisfy the officer on the spot, then a photo would be one of many ways that the rider could subsequently prove ownership.

 

[snorri]

It's also important to emphasise 'the bike can be seized', not the bike will be seized. Not much fear of any honest person without a major chip on their shoulder having a bike seized.

 

[Crankarm]

I think it should be noted that the website might have its own agenda, as "Going Going Bike is on a mission to create the legitimate online marketplace for used bicycles".

Anyway, the website says: So, at the first point of contact, they to see if the rider can verify ownership on the spot, an example of which would be in MontyVeda's post above. If they can't satisfy the officer on the spot, then a photo would be one of many ways that the rider could subsequently prove ownership.

Best dig out the pic of when I bought my bike showing the seller shaking my hand, indicating that the deal had been done and money had changed hands ........... unless of course the bike was already stolen and not his to sell.

How about Ebay/Paypal receipts?

Why don't plod target the hundreds of dodgy Ebay ads for obviously nicked bikes and other property? But this would involve time, money and actually investigating offences which plod are clearly reluctant to do. They would much rather hassle people who look a bit odd going about their lawful business in the hope they catch a criminal.

They really are making it up as they go along.

 

[Norm]

Why don't plod target the hundreds of dodgy Ebay ads for obviously nicked bikes and other property?

They do that too, but, if that was all they did, I'm sure others would complain that they never see police on the streets.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with a bit of visible policing.

 

[Chris-H]

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 if they honestly feel the police are as incompetant as they say why dont they join the force,they seem to think they can do a lot better job,also why dont they become politicians too,that way they can make up some ridiculous laws based on their ideals,to catch all the criminals in this country without ever having to stop anyone.That way the public wont ever have to be inconvenienced and have their lives so rudeley interupted for 2 very precious minutes to help the police to do a very demanding job (which of course they could do better than themselves) .

 

[Vikeonabike]

Instead of stopping cyclist randomly, now that the nights are drawing in, the police (I mean me) could (read as, will be) stopping every person found cycling after dark without lights. Now that is not to say that bike theft only happens during a time of darkness. What it does mean is a legitimate reason to stop a person on a bike.

This has several advantages over random stopping. Firstly there is the safety issue. Secondly, it give me the right to ascertain there name date of birth address etc (which then can be checked against the Police National Computer, Local Intelligence systems, Crime data). I can then check to see if the bike is thiers, and if enough suspicion is raised then I can get my hands in thier pockets...



Watch out Peterborugh it starts tonight!





PS Won't be running this op next summer!