|
Someone I know well, was stopped by a policewoman, who told him a tail light was out. he thanked her and said he would put the spare in, as he was fiddling in the boot, she was stood there. When he'd finished, she gave him a slip to take it to an MOT tester to confirm that the light he had just replaced was working, and a producer...... "When they can no longer catch the criminals, they criminalise those they can catch."
|
Many years ago, I was away in Switzerland for a week on holiday when my car was hit while parked outside my house.
I toddled off to the Police station and was told that as the accident might have happened more than 24 hours before, they would have to prosecute me for failing to report within 24 hours, so I'd better not bother. No ineterest whatsoever in trying to find out if anyone had seen it, etc. Pathetic.
V
PS. Caused no end of problems with the insurance company, but rules are rules.
|
As I have posted before, here in Spain it is mandatory to carry ALL car documents - including insurance, at all times. Photocopies are not acceptable unless, (excluding the insurance which MUSt be original), they are certified as valid by your local "Trafico" office.
Failure to produce on the spot means instant impounding of the car and its transfer by recovery vehicle to the car pound!
Similarly failure to produce personal identification such as a residents card, a National identity card or a passport, means instant impounding of the person at the local nick until proper proof of identity is produced.
Personal freedom and privacy is not the same here! Just wait until compulsory I.D. cards are in use in the U.K.!
Roger.
|
|
Ah but you see Malt they have a police force and the political will to enforce the law. We have neither...
|
Errr, forcing people to carry valuable documents in their car?
Enforcing that kind of law would mean the crims not only get your car - they get your docs too. Marvellous idea.
Malt's post is interesting but guys with one leg don't feel better just 'cos there are others with none.
The effect here was that the victims suffered more inconvenience than if they had been away and come back to a damaged car! They would still have been left with a claim to make but at least there would have been no finger wagging producer issued. It made them wonder whether plod were worth calling.
|
Wish you lot would make your mind up. Either you want uninsured drivers, non Licence holders, Un Motted vehicles sorted out or you don't.
The producer system is one arm to catch them. From experience it is surprising how often the so called innocents are not that white.
..... and if you are given a producer tell Plod if producing within 7 days is going to cause you bother. He will, no doubt,like I used to, make a note on the rear that there may be "delayed production". Thgis should be pointed out when docs produced. But that doesn't mean half a year.
DVD
DVD
|
What is the penalty if you don't produce your docs? I had to produce mine 3 years ago. I didn't have my driving licence as I had sent it off to the DVLA due to a change of address. The officer I presented the insurance to (no MOT as less than 3 years old) had to caution me for not producing, but I never heard anything else. Do you think they will have checked with the DVLA or just not bothered?
Daft isn't it, that there are times that you legally are without your physical licence which puts you in a sticky spot if asked to produce it.
|
|
|
A fair point DVD, but if a producer is issued to an uninsured driver of a car registered to a false address, and the driver fails to comply with the producer, how does that help?
My concern (which many backroomers seem to share) is that by shifting the system to a desk-based one where we are chased by post, away from one where traffic police stop bad-looking drivers and talk to them, it creates a massive loophole for those who really don't care and flout everything.
The system then carries on regardless and penalises those who are left exposed to it, often the reasonable ordinary bloke who just made an honest mistake with no intention of fraud/harm etc. I mean here mistakes such as booking an extended holiday covering the last weeks of a tax disc, moving house and mislaying documents etc.
|
Pdc
Fail to produce Driving Licence: &1,000fine No disq No points
Fail to produce Insurance and Test certificate: Likewise. (Note only one offence if both not produced or only one).
Patently
He is not a good Plod if he just asks personal details and slaps these straight on the Producer accepting them as gospel without some form of verification. Plus the other fact, for the very reason you mention, he does not go into a certain form of questioning and checking vehicle details before letting you go.
DVD
|
|
|
|
I disagree DVD. Wanting the police to crack down on unliscenced drivers is not mutually exclusive to objecting to overbearing authority.
Getting a producer is a right pain in the rear, nless you work close by to a police station and can do it in a lunch break. If you are given a producer because you have committed an offence, fair enough. But how can you justify doling out producers to people merely because some idiot has driven into their parked car and then done a runner?
A producer is an infringement on liberty. Although not a serious one, they should not be given unless there is a proper reason. If you argue that giving out producers in this scenario is justified, then you are by analogy arguing for complete random stop and search powers. this would undeniably catch more criminals, but is it the sort of country that we want to live in?
|
"But how can you justify doling out producers to people merely because some idiot has driven into their parked car and then done a runner?"
I thought that was fairly obvious. EVERY road user has a duty to keep their vehicle taxed, insured, etc. etc, so why shouldn't they be given producers? As somebody has already mentioned, it's not just the stereotypical scrote who is driving uninsured, and giving producers under such circumstances is in no way analogous to random stop and search powers - in this case the vehicles have been involved in an accident and, whatever the liability, it seems eminently sensible to use the opportunity to ensure that all is in order with them.
|
|
|
Joe.
One Sunday morning (years ago) when things were quiet, a keen and bored DVD was on patrol on the A.1. Right something to do to justify my wages, I exercised my power (and it is still there) to stop a motor car. Now I didn't know from Adam if the bloke was kosher or what. The law said I could. Having stopped him I exercised my power (still there) for him to produce his documents. Again I had no reason to know whether they were in order or not. Then came the argy bargy he was not carrying and that he had no other docs to prove who he was so RTC to Control with vehicle details (checked correct) and personal details of driver - no record. But something was wrong. I asked him what he carried in the boot of his car (owners generally do) and if he minded opening the boot, which he reluctantly agreed to do. And there was a filled sack, not mentioned, which contained three thousand quids worth of silver which proved to have been stolen from a country house.
It also turned out that he was a Disqualified driver. A result.
He got nine months imprisonment if I remember correctly.
Now the purpose of all this. Firstly the powers to stop and have documents produced is still the same at law. My inquisitiveness as to what was in the boot, due to PC now is banned by law under PACE unless I had reasonable suspicion to believe stolen goods were being carried i.e. I was infringing on his personal liberty.
Now I know what I would rather have Plod do and I am afraid I would emigrate if I had to live in a world you suggest. Sorry and no offence intended.
I must also emphasise that all my dealings were with politeness and as far as I could common courtesy.
DVD
|
DVD,
I understand your wish to defend the police and I'm sure you were a good copper but I think you're side-stepping the points being made.
There are virtually no patrols anymore and virtually no pro-active policing. The police now only react to events.
In the example given at the top of this post, the (presumably) uninsured driver has fled the scene, he has gone/vamoosed/skeddadled and the police were demonstrable uninterested in trying to find him. Inefficient use of resources no doubt and who knows maybe that is the right decision.
The police were called to the scene by the VICTIMS of the crime. Now it is highly unlikely that ayone CALLING the police to a scene would themselves be 'illegal'. OK some crazy people might do but 99.9% of people who call the police will be 'legal'.
So the police to the scene dish out producers to the crime victims, thereby creating another pile of 99.9% likely useless paperwork and thats it and the victims of the crime feel themselves further vitimised and respect for the police drops even further.
Sorry that is a bit of a rant and getting off cars and on to politics but you can see this can't you?
|
DVD,
You exercised reasonable powers over a driver, while showing tact, politeness and discretion. While doing so, your PC's intuition based on your experience in the job told you something was amiss. As a result you solved a crime.
Well done - you deserve credit for that. The driver was put to some inconvenience, but it transpired that this was of use in preventing crime.
But two things have since changed. First, as you say, the legal power that enabled you to look in the boot has been removed. So now, you could not solve the crime and we are left only with the inconvenience caused to an innocent driver (now presumed to be so as he is not proven guilty), with no benefit for the public at large.
Second, the officer exercising those powers is gone. Traffic police and officers patrolling are now like hen's teeth. Enforcement on the roads is left to cameras, DVLA computers etc because they are "more efficient".
Except that they are not "more efficient" because they catch the trivial with all the force of the law and miss the serious.
Would a camera have caught your burglar?
|
I will repeat what I said on another thread today.
For three days on the trot we have had the three or four traffic guys at the same spot on a lay by off the major commuter road into town , near to our local council estate, doing checks on tax discs and good luck to them, they seem to have a steady queue pulled over . Your average dodger is now having to worry not only about paying his tax but also whether they are going to be there again tommorrow - the only other way into town from the estate involves them in a five mile diversion!
I'm with DVD on this - we all have to support our police or we have anarchy but its a fine balance between that and being considered as infringing civil liberties, human rights etc etc.IMO we've gone too far down the PC ( and thats not police constable ) road.
|
No offence at all DVD, but I still don't agree!
Your story is not at all inconsistent with my argument. Powers to stop and search/hand out producers are very effective in controlling crime. They are also a darned nuisance.
I cannot argue that they do not work. I do not seek to do so. I am sure you would agree that police powers should not simply be justified on the grounds that they will catch more criminals, no matter how restrictive/intrusive they are, and that the innocent have nothing to fear. There is clearly a balance to be struck here. In general, (and taking into account the policing by consent stuff) people will support producers being given to offenders, even very minor ones. If you have done something to attract the legitimate interest of plod, then you can't complain about the producer.
I would have felt angry if I was the victim described at the beginning of this thread. I would have seen the police's intervention as entirely negetive. I would be surprised if I was in the minority in feeling this way, but life is full of surprises....
|
If all of these details ar enow available on the computer system why bother with producers at all? Seems a bit pointless to me...
Blue
|
|
|
|
Not having sold a car here I cannot give details, but I believe it is MUCH harder here to sell a used car than it is in UK. I am pretty sure that mere possesion of the car docs is not enough to transfer ownership.
As a side issue, when we bought, (for cash), a car when we arrived in Spain I had to produce my Foreigners Fiscal Identification or N.I.F. paperwork AND a copy of the purchase contract for our apartment. Folk who are renting accommodation must produce their rental agreement!
As an aside - I used to have a car dealership in UK and I can tell you, that if a punter rolled up to my showroom and said " I want that car, here is the dosh in readies", he could take it away there and then and I couldn't have cared less if he was a man from Mars or made from green cheese!
Roger.
|
Yet another opportunity for a police bashing post in which the criticism of police in this post appears to be based on the original statement by SteveS viz:
"Police arrive. Quickly lose interest when car reg turns out to be based in the midlands so likely stolen car."
Thommo takes up this theme viz:
"In the example given at the top of this post, the (presumably) uninsured driver has fled the scene, he has gone/vamoosed/skeddadled and the police were demonstrable uninterested in trying to find him."
Now its not clear if Steve witnessed the accident, but as "the Scroat looks out of side window, smiles and drives off!" then he possible did. Of course most people smile when they have just had an accident - especially nasty types who the police are going to let get away with things.
However the police presumably confided in Steve, or someone else who has accurately relayed the information as they normally do!!, that they had lost interest in the scroat. In fact "the police were demonstrable(sic) uninterested."
Hmm - It all sounds just a little implausible but run it by me again.
|
Cardew...
No I just can't be bothered with you.
|
The Police never catch anyone, they are totally uninterested in Crime or anything else.
This is the main reason as a firm of solicitors that our workload has increased by 30% in the last two years, we've had to employ to new briefs as well as four admin staff and move into a large new Office on a business park last November.We have had to cut down to a minimum on non-crime work. By the way because the Police are so disinterested the Prisons are also full and overflowing and Criminal Justice work is a huge growth industry in the work. Let's hope they remain disintrested so my share in the company grows evn bigger. I have just come back home after spending 6 hours in a Custody suite that was jammed pack (on a weekday night in winter !!!) The place was full of diintrested Police Officers hanging around doing nothing whilst the Prisoners busily interviewed themselves, charged themselves and then released themselves on bail.
|
Released on bail...
Yeah I'll bet, like the guys who kill the mother of two on the A45 recently...
|
|
It's a vicious cycle, the Police have such an awful job these days, they're get ever-more desperate in their recruitment and scrpee the barrel as we saw on a recent BBC documentary, the training scools have people who should never have got an interview, just thick people who can't behave themselves either. Also, it says in the papers today that 1 in 5 people in prison are not British passport holders, which says a lot about why they're so busy.
|
Sorry Dave.
There is nothing wrong or unexpected in Police Officers asking the victim of a hit and run collision for details of documents.
|
I experienced this 20 or so years ago. My car was hit while parked in the evening. (Drunk) driver did a runner, leaving car behind, police were quick enough to arrive but when they did, one of the priorities was the driving docs of the 3 cars which had been quite seriously damaged (although parked). At the time I was furious that they wouldn't take us round to cruise the streets to find the perp. He can't of been far away.
By the time they had our details, he wasn't anywhere to be found.
(btw when interviewed later that night, the female owner said the car had been stolen. The police suspected that she was telling porkies, and that her husband had used it to go to the pub. So, lawlessness isn't new!)
|
Apologies for arriving at this discussion rather late, but isn't the point of this debate "innocent or *maybe* guilty"?
IMO, the police attending the accident had no reason to suspect the owners of the parked vehicles damaged of any offence, and as such shouldn't have given them producers. Fullstop. If this is indeed simply an SOP, then fair enough, but i would assume that this would have been properly communicated to the victims, and perhaps this is an SOP which needs to be altered.
In the case of DVD's burglar, given that the police no longer have boot-opening powers, then ok maybe the crime wouldn't be solved nowadays, but that's a different issue.
If DVD had randomly stopped (as he is entitled to) a car and spoken to the driver, and he had at least some form of ID and the car was registered correctly, driver did not seem to jumpy/nervous etc, he should have sent the person on their way, no producer, as they were very probably perfectly legal drivers, therefore no need to cause them hassle and probably lower their own estimation of the police force as a whole.
If however, the driver seemed nervous or aggressive, then yes give him a producer, or take other action as seen fit, as this kind of behaviour is perceived as someone who is *maybe* guilty.
Does this not make more sense than handing out producers to everyone they speak to?
|
|
DVD (where are you !) or another serving Officer will confirm that the Police complete an Accident Booklet in respect of accidents that are likely to end up in court (i.e. injury, Fail to stop, really bad driving..). This booklet contains a checklist of items required from each driver/vehicle which include driving documents. I hoestly can't see what the big deal is. It is desirable to record insurance details and the such like because the Police are quite often in negotiation with Insurance comapnies at various stages of an accident invetigation. I honestly think reasonable to the point of common sense that this information is required by the Police - it'll be acadeic before long Insurance details are alredy on PNC, MoTs soon will be and Driver Licence details go on before long. PACE 1984 provides a power of searching vehicles and occupants as does consent. In my line of work I come accross people that have consented to searches which have resulted in them being nicked.
|
|
|
|
