Mind giving us the link to that MrX as the link in the OP makes no mention of location/speed/traffic, etc...
And I hardly think 46 tickets in one whole year for this sort of offence as excessive... if they were trying to meet "targets" I think that they've probably failed!
|
b308
With huge respect and, while I (for one) appreciate your function as resident conscience, perhaps I could venture to suggest that targets (which exist in every council) don't only centre on specific transgressions. Any will do. And there is a litany of them to choose from.
While we're at it, where in the Highway Code does it say that eating or drinking while driving is not lawful?
The purpose of legislation is supposed to enable the law-abiding not restrict them. The state is a tool not an end. But there perhaps we differ.
|
|
Oops done it again. Sorry if I sound bit confrontational b308. Not my intention at all. I always end up apologising on forums...
|
Note taken that way at all, FD!
I'm not acting as a "conscience" at all, I'm just a driver who wishes to go out in the morning on my drive and hope that I have a better than decent chance of getting back in one piece... thats why this sort of thing (eating, drinking, texting, putting on makeup(!)) really annoys me, because, despite what you and others may try to tell me I KNOW that they cannot be in full control of their car and therefore present a much greater threat to me. But what relly pink fluffy dice me off is when the "victim" in this case is totally convinced that they are in the right and is blind to the dangers they cause.
If you think that this sort of behaviour is acceptable, and perhaps even do it, then let me know and I'll try to avoid you as well!
(BTW I think you'll find that this has nothing to do with Council targets and that the HC does actually say that doing anything that will affect your ability to concentrate on driving is a no-no, and i suspect that all the aformentioned DO affect your driving abilities!)
Edited by Webmaster on 19/01/2009 at 00:29
|
B308, I probably abhor carelessness and inattention as much as you - I just don't think taking a swig from a water bottle or munching a cereal bar are in themselves evidence of it.
Putting on make-up at 60mph on the A41 which I saw this week I would call dangerous - but even that, stationary in traffic, would merit no more than a ticking off - else the law comes into disrepute when common sense is abandoned. Neither do police need powers to issue guilty-until-proven-innocent fixed penalties to deal with it - any mag would accept driving at speed while applying mascara as driving without due care.
|
but even that stationary in traffic would merit no more than a ticking off - else the law comes into disrepute when common sense is abandoned.
What happens when (not if) the 'ticking off' is met with a mouthful of abuse or heavy sarcasm. Unsurprisingly the 'miscreant' is then usually issued with a ticket.
If some of these people had the sense to acknowledge the advice they were being given and show a bit of contrition, then they would undoubtedly be let off with a warning or advice.
It's not appriopriate to leave someone with just a warning if you know they are not only not accepting the advice, but are being downright rude to officialdom in the process, as after all the official is being paid by the taxpayer to achieve whatever the aim is e.g. road safety.. a metaphorical two fingers to you isn't achieving a great deal is it, the person isn't acknowledging the potential for problems, even if on that occasion there wasn't a big deal... a Fixed Penalty Notice will at least have the person careful not to receive another one of them, even if they refuse to accept their liability for anything else.
Most, if not all, these slow news day stories have this sort of back ground...you need to read between the lines.
|
To Westpig's point about reading between the lines -
I appreciate that there are a lot of people with an attitude problem, but that doesn't explain why a ginger-nut nibbler would be pulled in the first place - unless he or she was actually being inattentive, in which case the ginger-nut is incidental.
The nibbling might be part of the evidence, and might even be the reason for the lack of care and attention, but if it is deemed a transgression per se we are in more trouble than I thought.
I would like to think that the lady in the story was all over the road, and that was the reason for the stop rather than the crust - but of course there'd be no story then.
|
|
While we're at it, where in the Highway Code does it say that eating or drinking while driving is not lawful?
www.churchill.com/pressReleases/22102007.htm
# More than eight out of ten (84%) drivers are unaware that playing loud music in cars is against the new Highway Code safety rules
# Almost two thirds (65%) of drivers admitted to eating while driving - this is against the new Highway Code safety rules
All I could find in the HC was below and doesn't seem to be a "MUST NOT"
148
Safe driving and riding needs concentration.
Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as
* loud music (this may mask other sounds)
* trying to read maps
* inserting a cassette or CD or tuning a radio
* arguing with your passengers or other road users
* eating and drinking
* smoking
|
|
Highway code is a guide that's all; it's not a definitive list of what's legal or illegal. Any of the above may be contributory to careless driving or not being in proper control. She was given a fixer for it, she has the right to go to Court to contest it.
|
|
"Avoid"... Dictionary...'Shun, Refrain From...' perhaps not quite 'must not', but certainly 'should not'... I feel you are just playing with words, Martin, you know full well what they mean!
|
|
|
Lost in the clutter of all this is the fact that several Forces required their Officers to meet targets over the Christmas period - these targets were (apparently) easily achievable and were generally after the type of offences that BRs crave to be pursed by the Police. The timescale of this story is missing in the report.
If she felt that strongly about the whole thing she could have opted to go to Court - the case may not even have made it beyond the CPS (who contrary to a recently articulated opinion in here do exercise the common sense test on a daily basis).
There may have been aggravating circumstances that weren't reported (or "remembered" by the woman in question). We shall never know will we ?
As someone else above said - a silly season non-story.
|
>>If she felt that strongly about the whole thing she could have opted to go to Court
and risk increasing the cost by several hundred percent and a day's pay?
Most people will just pay up even though they think it utterly wrong. When my son was ticketed recently for "obstruction" (parking in a residential street without restrictions where the residents don't like it and only cars displaying permits for the local hospital staff car park - which is full - get ticketed), a magistrate friend was incensed on our behalf - but understood why he preferred to pay up and move on.
>>the case may not even have made it beyond the CPS (who contrary to a recently articulated opinion in here do exercise the common sense test on a daily basis).
You are a professional - most of us would simply expect the police/PCSO to present his/her 'notes' as evidence in such a way as to secure a prosecution and conviction, so we roll over.
|
Justice is now priced beyond the reach of the ordinary person in this country. So innocent until proven guilty has gone out of the window and has been replaced with police officers acting as judge and jury on the spot ( along with local councils and a raft of other officials )
How far away are we from being pulled over because we are believed to be sucking a sweet. ?
The fact that there is only yourself in the vehicle along with a bag of wrapped , boiled sweets leads instantly to a fixed penalty because you must have unwrapped the sweet and therefor where not in control of your vehicle at that time .
|
|
|
|
I miss America. You could drive down the freeway and watch people eating an entire McDonalds meal (burger, fries, big drink) and talk on the phone at the same time.
"Is this illegal?" I asked a policeman. "No," he said, "only if they try to send a text message too..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granada Tv local news -
As for targets, I was not referring to this one particular offence but the need to have a certain number of motorists a week notched on the utility belt. Points make prizes in Boys in Blue land.
Edited by Mr X on 17/01/2009 at 21:51
|
I remember when my brother had to finally get rid of his Maestro and he got a Cavalier/Vectra.
He did not like it as much as the Maestro had enough headroom that he could hold a tilted bag of crisps in the air to let all the crumbs fall into his mouth but not in the Vauxhall as it had a sunroof!!
|
|
He could have opened the sunroof I suppose.....
|
|
Of course! And then just let go of the bag when it was empty...
|
A Cadbury's Flake is the ultimate challenge.
Select full auto, and cruise control, foot on engine hump so you can steer with you knee, and savour those last few crumbs left in the wrapper.
Of course the trick is not to sneeze at the last moment.
Pat
|
|
|
|
As for targets I was not referring to this one particular offence
So was nothing to do with this story and had no tangeble connection to it at all... if you are so concerned about targets why don't you set up a seperate thread instead of trying to hijack others...
And that's a serious suggestion btw, not sarcasm! ;)
|
Sneezing while driving ought to be punishable as well, as it is impossible to sneeze and see at the same time. But who will bring offenders to book? This crust-thrower must have been particularly unlucky as there seem to be as many drivers happily using mobiles on the move as before the fine was increased.
This is the dine-driving approach of a young German friend, pulled over for eating a sandwich on the move by an irate policeman.
IP. "What do you mean by eating while driving?"
YGF. "Plis?"
IP. "I said, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY EATING WHILE DRIVING?"
YGF (who speaks perfect English). "Schade, Ich kann nicht English spik."
IP. (Points frantically at sandwich.)
YGF. "Ah!" Smiles and offers half-eaten sandwich to IP. "You want eat?"
IP. "Oh, pink fluffy dice off!"
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 18/01/2009 at 12:44
|
|
|
b308 - Mr X's post does have a loose connection to this case. Admittedly a bit flakey (!!) but we do usually tolerate a certain amount of deviation. A full scale hijack would be different.
|
|
TBH I just feel that it does need a seperate thread... he seems to manage to bring up targets in most threads.. surely it'd be better to have a seperate one?
|
As the OP I think Mr X made a completely relevant point - I can see no reason for issuing a ticket just for eating the crust other than to get the conviction/detection rate up. The fact that there were only 46 convictions for this particular "offence" in 2008 is neither here nor there - we'll see a lot more in 2009 is my guess.
I did concede that she might actually have been inattentive, but that wasn't my point. If she was steering badly/braking suddenly then the ticket might have been justified. My point was that chewing on a crust while driving isn't IMO any sort of sin and nor is it in itself evidence of driving without due care. We have lost all perspective on these things - to see points and a fine as in any way reasonable or proportionate is laughable.
We have always had policing by consent in this country - the yob factor has unfortunately started to break that down but the majority of decent people still defer; that deference will soon break down as well if nibbling a ginger nut has become an absolute offence.
I would rather the great and the good look at the above mentioned yob factor - how have we allowed that to happen? I suggest it's because there are no consequences that matter for many of them, and dealing with that would be a good start.
Edited by Manatee on 18/01/2009 at 09:46
|
I really do think this is just a rule for the jobsworths in uniform.
Show me the stats for people crashing while consuming food and I will take it seriously - such as how many accidents people have had, sitting stationary at traffic lights while popping some food in their mouth. I would bet, none.
Its a very cynical rule for very bored coppers. I would hope that the decent ones only actually apply when there appears to be a real risk to the public by what someone is doing.
|
|
|
but that wasn't my point. If she was steering badly/braking suddenly then the ticket might have been justified. My point was that chewing on a crust while driving isn't IMO any sort of sin and nor is it in itself evidence of driving without due care. We have lost all perspective on these things - to see points and a fine as in any way reasonable or proportionate is laughable.
I for one certainly agree...but...some people (and a surprisingly high minority) do nothing whatosever to help themselves and in fact go further; being obnoxious, rude and confrontational quite quickly. My point is a quick 'yes officer' and keep quiet (even if you drove down the road afterwards and though "male bird") would negate the ticket in the first place....common sense.
We have always had policing by consent in this country - the yob factor has unfortunately started to break that down but the majority of decent people still defer; that deference will soon break down as well if nibbling a ginger nut has become an absolute offence.
An increasing number of people don't like 'doing as they're told'. It's probably a by-product of a true democracy, no doubt combined with a whole generation who have grown up without the parental guidance some of us had.
As an example, i watched a Customs programme last night that i'd taped. A Customs cutter stopped and boarded a British yacht off The Lizard once it entered our territorial waters. Mr and Mrs Respectable on board. The 'lady' moaned like hell about the intrusion and how it was the second time (in many years) that they'd been stopped (they were the only vessel in many miles)...whereas i'd be thinking 'great, we do have a border patrol, we do have people actively trying to prevent drugs or whatever entering our country' etc
|
|
I really think Westpig's attitude needs to challenged. It typifies the shut-up and do as I say or I'll book you approach adopted by several officers I've had the misfortune to encounter.
|
|
Not really scotty. Some motorists' attitude to others on the road typifies what police officers have to put up with. Some years ago I made a u-turn in an unfamiliar area and hadn't noticed the sign. Was pulled over and quite firmly told that I'd just got myself three penalty points and a fine. Apologised profusely to said officer, explained that I'd had a clean licence and never so much as a parking ticket and went away with a flea in my ear. Humble pie might not taste very nice but it doesn't cost anything
|
|
Fleas fly off quicker than points - an understanding of basic human psychology, make them like you, they want to be liked - really ! :-)
|
It typifies the shut-up and do as I say or I'll book you approach adopted by several officers I've had the misfortune to encounter.
Funnily enough i don't see it the same way. I see it as:
you're paid by the public to perform a role, part of that role is to encourage/insist others drive within the law and drive safely...you can achieve that by words of advice or prosecution. If you try the former and receive abuse, sarcasm, rudeness etc...then that isn't going to work is it? So you revert to option 2. Simple.
Where else in the world is it done any differently? Plus you're more likely to get option 1 in this country than most other places.
|
It typifies the shut-up and do a
I hope a bit of common sense comes into play, should i get a tug for doing something wrong, then as far as i'm concerned i'm nicked.
IF i apologise for getting caught and try to woo the officer round then its no skin off my nose and i may well get away with a good ear bending.
I see nothing wrong with that, half the bods out there that give plod grief are contributing to their own nicking, but you just can't help some people.
Is it so difficult to give an officer his/her due respect, in my experience it is returned over 99% of the time.
|
Isn't part of the problem the fact that in this country we have come to accept the endless introduction of various laws ( mainly motoring related ) along with their instant pay up justice, with out questioning them ?
No figures to show exactly how many people died or were injured as the result of a traffic accident caused by some body eating a crust yet a law in place to halt this loss of life .
|
My gripe Mr X. On top of that you have a multitude of enforcement bods - no-one can keep up locally let alone nationally on who enforces what. I am of the opinion that alll these enforcement fly on the wall crap on the telly isn't a help - people take their moral and behavioural steer from the box these days, and the attitudes that Westpig reports is a case of Monkey See/Monkey Do.
There's no specific offence of eating a crust (or any other morsal) at the wheel - its an offence of not having proper control of a motor vehicle we're looking at.
Slack reporting though.
|
'its an offence of not having proper control of a motor vehicle we're looking at.'... matter of criteria then ?
You say you have control, officer says you haven't. In my view, a court should decide. It should not be decided by some one who is pressurised to act because of force targets .
|
|
What I said early on - she had the option to do this - may even have failed the CPS threshold.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, let's have a 'targets' thread. We can have a full and frank explanation about why some officers have brought targets upon themselves and the public at large, through their own sheer laziness. Without so called 'targets' (for which read 'measurement') some officers would come to work and produce nothing. I expect to earn my wages, am well aware where they come from, and think the public expect a level of accountability from their Police, in whatever field of Policing it may be that affects them.
|
Manatee, have you actually got a link to the full details of this case so we can actually judge whether it was justified or not... certainly from the OP link there is simply not enough info to make the "assumptions" you and MrX are making concerning the level of the penalty or the supposed targets...
I can't see any point in having a go at the Police when we just don't know if they were justified or just being petty... and sweeping generalisations like I've seen in some of the posts don't do the cause any good at all.
Stu, if they are being petty-minded when doing people for this offence then I entirely agree, but where's the evidence?... certainly none on this thread that there's a massive purge that some would seem to indicate is happening... just some silly girl with a grudge...
Edited by b308 on 18/01/2009 at 10:07
|
A little more detail here -
tinyurl.com/96cm4j
B308, I'm not using this case to make any assumptions at all.
Edited by Manatee on 18/01/2009 at 13:08
|
Thanks, M, a lot more detail there, but all one sided... she says she wasn't doing any harm but we only have her word for what she says she was doing, there is nothing there to indicate why the Police actually pulled her over other than she admitted to eating a "crust" and was seen doing so... though again we only have her word that she had only eaten that bit and had not eaten the rest just before... we don't know the speed of the car or its location... she does however confirm that she was actually moving when doing it...
The "target" reference I feel was just thrown in to divert the blame away from her doing something wrong, just like others use it on here...
BTW I'll back up her request for Stig to test it, I'm 100% certain that his reactions will be far better when not eating! Perhaps someone ought to call her bluff!
|
The "target" reference
I know it was a fact in my area (and others) over the Christmas period - I make no apologies for mentioning it - there is over zealous Policing, but I do firmly believe its a minority pursuit,
|
|
It seems to me to be a nonsense that the Government is running a Crime Reduction Programme, which most people support, but then when it has worked and there is way less crime, Performance Indicators are set for arrests, issuing of warnings etc leading to the pursuit of trivial and relatively unimportant breaches of the letter of the law.
|
|
|
Targets are not measurement, and they are invariably - always and incontrovertibly - internalised and produce more or fewer unwanted consequences.
I have spent a great deal of time looking at performance measurement and evaluation, albeit not with the police, and all the pitfalls are apparent in so many ways now in the public services - schools improving their results every year while turning out pupils who know nothing useful, GPs who will not make an appointment more than 48 hours ahead (so that the measure shows that no-one had to wait more than 48 hours for an appointment) and traffic wardens fabricating offences.
I don't blame police officers at all - a fish rots from the head. If somebody told me to get my detection rate up it wouldn't take me long to work out that if I can give somebody a ticket for looking at me a bit funny, then I could add 1 to both the numerator and the denominator and the percentage would improve. This will go on until some alert stakeholder points out that it is distorting the stats and is excluded, so another "offence" becomes the makeweight.
It's very frustrating for many people, not just police officers, who are targeted and measured and can only "get on" by doing daft things. I see lots of it. There are other ways of managing and motivating people, and I've seen plenty of skivers and dodgers surviving and prospering under a system of targets and measurement.
For what it's worth, I believe that most police officers do a good job and act proportionately in regard to traffic policing, but I think they do it despite the targets rather than because of them.
|
|
hit the nail on the head from my perspective Manatee
|
Watching the video, somewhat ought to tell her to take down the pennant hanging from the rear view mirror.
Deliberately obstructing your forward vision - how stupid is that?
|
Rear view mirrors themselves obstruct forward vision, as do sun visors and sat navs.
|
An interesting thread which I nearly didn't read.
I read the subject as "Fine points of eating while driving". I thought it was some nonsense about the ettiquete of eating at the wheel.
Edited by scotty on 18/01/2009 at 13:02
|
Spex4Less.com is v.good for specs at very reasonable prices Scotty.
Phil I
|
Rear view mirrors themselves obstruct forward vision as do sun visors
If you are looking for low flying planes, I suppose! ;-)
|
If you are looking for low flying planes I suppose! ;-)
I agree with AS on his post, since we've had the fashion for steeply raked windscreens making the A pillar just right for the bashing of the bonce, we have the handy by product of rearview mirrors at eye level with the driver, taking a goodly portion of forward visibility with it.
Most of the really modern, especially coupe designs are like this.
The first vehicle i really noticed that, was when the Omega replaced the Carlton, very claustraphobic and poor visibility compared with the light and airy high visibility cabin of the Carlton.
I think they call it progress.
|
the handy by product of rearview mirrors at eye level with the driver taking a goodly portion of forward visibility with it.
I must be just lucky in my choice of cars, then... never had the problem!
BTW didn't a lot of the 60s sports cars have this problem... and a narrow windscreen as well... MGB, Spitfire, Midget, etc?
Edited by b308 on 18/01/2009 at 20:46
|
|
I'd rather she'd got a ticket for the mirror dangler than for crust eating - I really can't understand why anyone would put a constantly moving object one foot from their face and in their peripheral vision and then drive.
|
|
Is a CD suspended from the RVM a compulsory fitting in a minicab?
Edited by Old Navy on 18/01/2009 at 19:52
|
I think, and this may well be my imagination, that there was an automotive myth at one time that dangling a CD from the mirror somehow confused radar guns or Gatsos. Perhaps there are still those who believe it works. If it is not some confusion reigning in what remains of my brain it never did work. Pity really I suppose......Or maybe not, "they" would only have had come up with something even more fiendish in response.
I find these days it to be much more relaxing to stay within sensible reach of the given speed limit and listen to a CD instead. Must be getting old....
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 18/01/2009 at 22:35
|
Is it illegal to stick 2 Cadbury's Fingers up at a policeman?
Can you get done for having a Garibaldi tyre?
What happens if you are involved in an accident due to Breakaway failure?
|
>>What happens if you are involved in an accident due to Breakaway failure?<<
You will end up paying a "Bounty" in fines.
|
|
To get back to the point: I would be only too pleased to comply with a law banning eating and drinking (and using any phone, of course) while driving, as long as the same ban was applied to smoking. It is beyond me why the alleviation of withdrawal symptoms in drug dependent drivers, while the addict is actually driving, is legal. Clearly, this fair application of the law is improbable in Liverpool at present because of the frequency of this 'offence'.
|
|
Well it nearly happened to me - going from one meeting to another I was devilishly hungry, stopped to fuel up and bought some crisps - so much for smug good intentions.
|
|
As long as you didn't smoke them I think the life police will leave you alone........
|
Manatee: you said: Technically correct but disingenuous. You're guilty until proven innocent. Any fule no that if you elect to go to court, barring any technical loopholes, the court will almost always fine you four times as much, plus you will have your and the court's costs and the 'victims fees'. The late John Mortimer might have had something to say.
I won't be chaining myself to any railings, I've one life and it's a short one - but the whole fixed penalty thing is frankly a disgusting abuse of hard-won freedoms.
You must remember that before fixed penalties came in you had no choice but to go to court. No-one said £60 and 3 points was a court base line. The fine and points were deliberately set low to save people who thought themselves guilty a larger fine AND costs. If you elect a court hearing when in receipt of a FPN you should not do so on the expectation that you will 'get off', unless, of course, you have good grounds for entering a not guilty plea. If you're simply trying it on expect a court to dish out the old fashioned fine (according to means) plus a bit plus costs for wasting their time. In my experience ( and it's long) the merest sniff of doubt and the court will acquit. It is not the case that 'barring any loophole' the court will find you guilty. I'd be pleased to know your objective evidence that supports this assertion. What about the view that says fixed penalties bring the errant motorist into line for the benefit of all? Would you rather the authorities do nothing or without FPN's waste masses of taxpayers money running relatively trivial court cases that could perhaps be avoided?
|
@woodster
It is not the case that 'barring any loophole' the court will find you guilty. I'd be pleased to know your objective evidence that supports this assertion.
I have certainly been told this by both a police officer and a magistrate. I haven't tested it personally but I would be unlikely to - I would feel coerced into paying up and accepting points even if I believed myself to be innocent, if it was a case of my word against that of a police officer.
>>What about the view that says fixed penalties bring the errant motorist into line for the benefit of all? Would you rather the authorities do nothing or without FPN's waste masses of taxpayers money running relatively trivial court cases that could perhaps be avoided?
I'd have some sympathy with this point if I didn't think that the process was likely to be abused. Unfortunately there are signs that this is happening and will probably get worse.
This is all slightly hypothetical - the nearest I can get from personal, recent knowledge is my son's ticketing for "obstruction" by a PCSO. He had done nothing of the kind - his car was parked legally, not blocking any access or thoroughfare. He paid the fine on the basis that (and we did have a conversation with a magistrate friend) if the PCSO were to produce contemporaneous notes to the effect that an obstruction had been caused, a magistrate would be more or less obliged to accept it and the result would only be to increase the £30 cost. Unfortunately he did not take a photograph as he did not notice the ticket until he was on the move, though of course any such evidence might have to be admitted to be useful. This small episode has done a lot of damage to my very public spirited and responsible son's attitude to "the law". (There have been many such ticketings of staff at the hospital where my son works. The hospital staff car park has been built on/sold off and is too small - staff park on nearby roads where the residents understandably grumble - only cars with hospital parking permits appear to be ticketed).
I have no problem with FPs being issued for an absolute offence such as speeding. But I will resent extremely being FPed for "not being in control" if the evidence consisted of no more than eating a ginger nut or having a swig from a bottle of water. And I wouldn't go to court because I would be risking a significantly greater cost and inconvenience. Paranoia? We'll see.
I understand the points you are making Woodster, but I think "guilty until proven innocent" is how most people would perceive FPs.
|
I think the authorities are overlooking a genuinly dangerous activity whilst driving, namely sneezing.
At least smoking,drinking ,eating, listening or using a mobil phone do not make you shut your eyes whilst driving. Sneezing does! Experts say that sneezing while driving at 70mph could mean travelling 300ft with your eyes closed.
I would,like to see extensive testing for colds and on the spot fines for use of handkerchieves whilst driving. Some sort of virus meter should be possible.
Edited by CGNorwich on 19/01/2009 at 20:56
|
|
I tend to suffer a sneezing fit when approaching lights on amber... ;-)
|
|
How many points for adjusting or dipping the interior mirror whilst on the move ?
|
|
rather an unfortunate picture from a Google camera (to the right of the article on the link). Didn't realise those Google pictures were quite so intrusive, still if you have to urinate in so public a fashion what do you expect
|
|
Looks to me like they've got the camber all wrong... ;-)
|
|
Manatee-thanks for your response. I take your points and whilst not wishing to prolong the argument can't stop myself responding to one aspect: No disrespect to your magistrate friend but they are lay people. The (qualified) Clerk in court advises them on law. One persons word against anothers (regardless of occupation) will not satisfy the burden of proof required (beyond reasonable doubt). In the event of a not guilty plea I doubt whether the CPS would have pursued a simple obstruction, let alone you have to worry about the magistrates view. Evidence generally requires corroboration. I didn't know PCSO's could issue FPN's for obstruction, but it's a £30 and no points so I can see why you wouldn't be minded to take the hassle of arguing it. A good bet that the PCSO wouldn't be able to present decent evidence though....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
