Run into from behind by taxi
Ian Jackson
`Run into from behind by bus' here[1] and `Garden Walk accident' in
cam.misc.[2])
On Friday the 1st at around 1850 I was riding with my partner; the
incident happened as we went from Four Lamps towards Drummer Street
along Short Street and Emmanual Road. It was dark (so we both had
lights of course) and had been raining so the streets were wet.
We were doing maybe 15mph near the first side of New Square when I
became aware of a vehicle behind me. At this point I my partner was a
few metres ahead of me and I was in a primary position or perhaps even
somewhat to the right of that - we had generally been riding abreast.
(Note that the speed limit here is 20mph.)
I heard a horn sound once and a revving engine and the next thing I
knew I had been hit from behind. The bike fell to the ground but I
managed somehow to land on my feet! It all happened very quickly; I
think the driver must have intended merely to intimidate but
misjudged. The collision site was just by the first traffic island
with bollard warnings etc, just after the turning off for the Four
Lamps side of New Square.
After this my partner came back to assist (and to help block the
driver's escape). The driver got out of his car and picked up my bike
and dragged it out of his way onto the pavement. By this point though
witnesses are starting to approach us and every statement of the
driver's was being contradicted. The driver said various things, eg
that it was wet and that's why he couldn't stop, that I was in the
middle of the road (which was of course true), that I had stopped in
front of him (which wasn't), and each time a new witness would say
`Nonsense, I saw everything and it was entirely your fault'.
I collected the names and phone numbers of the witnesses, and after a
little while we moved on to the bus stop which we used as layby for us
to exchange names (I already had the registration and taxi licence
numbers). My partner phoned the police but we didn't need them to
attend so we just got an incident number.
Astonishlyly, I was nearly unharmed - the next day I found I had a
pulled muscle in my side, which has healed just fine. Futhermore, my
bike was also nearly unharmed - later that night I found that one of
the cable ties holding on the lights battery had been snapped by the
shock of the collision, but that was trivial to fix. My rear light
was even shining perkily right after the collision!
I went to the station to make a proper report, but they were too busy
and said they'd come and visit. After several missed attempts (it
must have been a busy weekend), the police finally managed to catch up
with me and take a statement. They sent an officer who had cycled in
Cambridge! Who knew what I was talking about! Who was sympathetic!
They took the details of the witnesses etc. and said they would
prosecute for dangerous driving.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>(See also `Run into from behind by bus' here[1] and `Garden Walk
>accident' in cam.misc.[2])
Oops, forgot the footnotes:
[1] <6Re*rL...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> (eejit bus)
[2] <mWD*tW...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> (racing eejits)
Nick Maclaren
In article <O4d*eb...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
|>
|> I went to the station to make a proper report, but they were too busy
|> and said they'd come and visit. After several missed attempts (it
|> must have been a busy weekend), the police finally managed to catch up
|> with me and take a statement. They sent an officer who had cycled in
|> Cambridge! Who knew what I was talking about! Who was sympathetic!
Impressive!
|> They took the details of the witnesses etc. and said they would
|> prosecute for dangerous driving.
Please keep us informed.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Jennifer Liddle
> They took the details of the witnesses etc. and said they would
> prosecute for dangerous driving.
Here's hoping.
If it was a Cambridge City registered taxi then it's probably worth
reporting the incident to the taxi licensing office too.
Actually, even if it isn't city registered it's worth reporting to
whichever authority it is registered with.
--
Jennifer Liddle http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP Key: http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl/pgpkey.html
Quigley's Law: Whoever has any authority over you, no matter how small,
will attempt to use it.
Douglas de Lacey
> So here is hopefully my final report of recent excitement. (See also
> `Run into from behind by bus' here[1] and `Garden Walk accident' in
> cam.misc.[2])
Well done both of you. I'd just add one point:
> Astonishlyly, I was nearly unharmed - the next day I found I had a
> pulled muscle in my side, which has healed just fine. Futhermore, my
> bike was also nearly unharmed
Wrong attitude. You *were* injured, your bike *was* damaged. Only
emphasis on those two points is likely to make the police take the
incident seriously. I'm delighted they have.
Douglas de Lacey
wafflycat
benefit of membership is that they help when you've been shunted. Certainly
CTC membership was useful when my husband was victim of hit & run by a
motorist.
Tim Ward
news:O4d*eb...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
> They sent an officer who had cycled in Cambridge!
Not rare. Dan Vajzovic, now a Detective Inspector but in 2000 Arbury's beat
policeman, told me that he could do the job much better on his bike than in
a car, as he could see and hear more (and, no doubt, it was harder for
people to see and hear him coming). The reactive cops are not going to be on
bikes as they are routinely required to go a long distance in a hurry, but
the community cops may use bikes when they want to, and several of them do.
Sometimes the policeman's mode of transport is contsrained by factors other
than his free choice however. I've heard (from different officers) of:
(1) having to use a car because the bike had been run over by a villain
(2) having to use a bike pending his bosses deciding what to do about him
following an accident between two police cars in the police station car
park.
(At least I *think* I've remembered the second one correctly, it was
something like that.)
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Roland Perry
Dec 2006, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>(2) having to use a bike pending his bosses deciding what to do about him
>following an accident between two police cars in the police station car
>park.
Hoho, did they have to report that accident [to themselves] I wonder ;-)
--
Roland Perry
Tony Raven
When I spoke to them a year or so ago they were happy to give some
informal over the phone advice but could only take on cases that
involved personal injury (and not of the pulled muscle variety) YMMV
--
Tony
"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Maneate
"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:O4d*eb...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
Reminds me of an incident I was involved in about 8 or 9 years back.
I was driving away from the city along Hills Road and got to the junction
with Cherry Hinton Road and as I approached the lights they started to turn
to red, so I slowed and stopped at the white line. Shortly after stopping,
a cyclist ran straight into the back of my car, and ended up in a heap in
the road. Got out to check he was OK and received a lot of abuse from the
cyclist for 'stopping without warning' and 'almost killing him'. I pointed
out that all my brake lights were working, that I had stopped at Red traffic
lights as required to do so, and that as I had become stationary long before
he hit me, that he could not have been paying attention to the road, and
therefore he must have been at fault. As the cyclist was becoming
aggressive towards me I rang the Police. When they arrived they were more
interested in breathalysing me (passed), checking my car for defects (none
found), wanting my details (not available so got a HURT), and were not the
slightest bit interested in the fact the cyclist had ridden into a vehicle
that was standing at a red traffic light, in the correct lane. My
complaints about the threats and abuse from the cyclist were ignored and the
cyclist was allowed to leave by the Police without giving his name or
details.
In the end the Police let me go as well, although were obviously upset they
could not pin anything on me. Some weeks later I got a letter from the
Police saying they had decided not to charge me with any offence.
J
Mike Clark
Brian Morrison <scra...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> On 12/12/2006 Maneate wrote:
> > In the end the Police let me go as well, although were obviously
> > upset they could not pin anything on me. Some weeks later I got a
> > letter from the Police saying they had decided not to charge me
> > with any offence.
>
> Your mistake was to be driving a vehicle that could be identified,
> linked to you, checked for roadworthiness, valid VED and insurance and
> that you could be checked to ensure you were correctly licensed.
Is there anything wrong with checking a driver for drugs and alcohol and
the vehicle for road worthiness and valid VED and insurance?
There is very good evidence that many serious incidents on the road do
involve uninsured and unroadworthy vehicles and or drivers who may be
driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Unless the police carry out such checks how else do we expect the
situation to be controlled?
If your innocent I don't see you have any cause for concern in being
checked and we all have something to be gained if unfit drivers or
vehicles are deterred from using the road.
I think such checks are preferable to the current trend of mainly
policing the roads by cameras.
>
> So much easier than dealing with the real issue at hand!
>
What was the original issue that needed sorting? Was there evidence of
damage to the vehicle or injury to a person and a need to exchange
insurance details? Were there independent witnesses to any crime, other
than the two individuals, i.e. one word against the other? What if any
charge would you expect the police to make in such a case?
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Maneate
"Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:515291944e....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
>
> What was the original issue that needed sorting?
Well, the cyclist was being extremely aggressive verbally, and his
mannerisms indicated he could become physically aggressive as well. As a
result I was in some fear for my safety from this person, hence why I rang
999. If I recall correctly that is two offences to be going on with:
Conduct likely to ensue in a breach of the peace, and threatening behaviour.
In addition, no attempt was made to check if the cyclist had been drinking -
I understand being drunk in charge of a cycle is also an offence - and he
was more or less waved on his way. No interest was taken in any potential
damage to my vehicle - be it only scratches, or a dent. What would have
happened if the police had found (say) a 'defective light' due to the
cyclist smashing it on impact? As they had let him go before they gave the
car the 10th degree I would have had no come back to prove it was him, other
than my word against the police, and of course the perpetrator who they let
go.
Need I go on. The Police are blatantly pro-cyclist in Cambridge.
take the news storey on Look East earlier this week. Cyclists with
no-lights, who ARE breaking the law, given 'words of advice' and allowed to
proceed.
I bet you that if it was a car driving without lights, 'words of advice'
would be backed up by a fine or report for prosecution.
J
Tony Raven
>
> Well, the cyclist was being extremely aggressive verbally, and his
> mannerisms indicated he could become physically aggressive as well. As a
> result I was in some fear for my safety from this person, hence why I rang
> 999. If I recall correctly that is two offences to be going on with:
> Conduct likely to ensue in a breach of the peace, and threatening behaviour.
>
That's one interpretation. The other is that an independent person (the
police who are not known for a pro cyclist attitude in Cambridge) came
along and concluded that you, not the cyclist, was actually the cause of
the problem. Given your known attitude towards cyclists here, that we
only have your account and the way the police responded, this
alternative interpretation has a lot to commend it.
Alan Braggins
>
>I bet you that if it was a car driving without lights, 'words of advice'
>would be backed up by a fine or report for prosecution.
When I was stopped by the police for having a failed headlight, I was
told to make sure I fixed it in the morning (after a breathalyser test).
No fine or report.
(I realize that's not the same as without lights altogether. I do see
drivers who have forgotten their lights sometimes, but haven't ever
seen them being stopped by the police.)
Maneate
"Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote in message
news:4uabdsF...@mid.individual.net...
> Given your known attitude towards cyclists here, that we only have your
> account and the way the police responded, this alternative interpretation
> has a lot to commend it.
>
Maybe you were that aresehole of a cyclist, or were a witness who knew that
ALL car drivers are automatically guilty and rang the Police.
Would have been interesting to find out if there was an 'independent person'
who was never made known to me. The police never implied that anyone else
had contacted them, and I would have thought that the Police would have
tried to determine the facts themselves. Allowing the cyclist to go without
as much as asking his name and address was foolish. Also if they had
decided to prosecute on some trumped up charge, they had let their main
witness go, probably not very sound evidence in court. They were not
interested in what I had to say at all, and seemed hell bent on getting me
for something.
As for my " known attitude towards cyclists", I have been, and still am
(although only occasionally now) a cyclist. Additionally, when walking in
Cambridge I have been kicked over once, not to mention having been hit by
and received verbal abuse from numerous areseholes on bicycles. My car has
been kicked, a mirror broken, scratches made on the door, spat at, all by
cyclists - ALL because I inadvertently interrupted their god-given right to
ride where and how they want, regardless of the law, rules etc.
Is it any wonder I am not pro-cyclists and think Cambs Police are a total
waste of fucking space and time?
To balance it out, I have also been involved in two moving vehicle
accidents. One where a van drove into the back of me, again when stopped at
traffic lights, and one where an idiot tried to over take me where there was
not room to do so. Both drivers were angry and upset, but not in anyway
violent or threatening.
J
Ed Weatherup
> "Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:515291944e....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
>>
>> What was the original issue that needed sorting?
>
[snip details]
> Need I go on. The Police are blatantly pro-cyclist in Cambridge.
According to the Cambridge police that I've spoken to they are under-manned,
under-paid and under-appreciated ... *and* messed about by "Higher
Management" so they can't get on and do the job. When they can get on with
the job they are hedged about by regulation and restriction which also gets
in the way and prevents a common-sense approach[1].
With that in mind, as a *possible* background:
> take the news storey on Look East earlier this week. Cyclists with
> no-lights, who ARE breaking the law, given 'words of advice' and
> allowed to proceed.
Yup. No point in trying levy fines on cyclists who may well be the crusading
"fight-it-in-the-courts" and/or "cyclists have at least equal rights"
variety; far too likely to end up with no result and that looks bad on the
league tables.
> I bet you that if it was a car driving without lights, 'words of
> advice' would be backed up by a fine or report for prosecution.
Nice and easy this one. Big central database, which ii good, and somebody
else's problem to enforce, which is much better.
... so not so much "pro-cyclist" or "pro-motorist" as "pro-easy life" ....
human beings in other words.
[1] OTOH, I've heard the same complaints from teachers, so believe it if you
will.
--
Ed.
Nick Maclaren
In article <4uadivF...@mid.individual.net>,
"Ed Weatherup" <inv...@invalid.invalid> writes:
|> Maneate wrote:
|>
|> > Need I go on. The Police are blatantly pro-cyclist in Cambridge.
|>
|> According to the Cambridge police that I've spoken to they are under-manned,
|> under-paid and under-appreciated ... *and* messed about by "Higher
|> Management" so they can't get on and do the job. When they can get on with
|> the job they are hedged about by regulation and restriction which also gets
|> in the way and prevents a common-sense approach[1].
You're both trolling. It is perfectly reasonable for the police to
spend time on enforcing such things proportional to the harm that
such lawbreakers do to other people. Therefore they should spend
about a thousand times as much time enforcing regulations on motor
vehicles as they do on enforcing them on bicycles.
I'll bet that they spend less than that on motor vehicles relative
to cyclists!
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Maneate
"Nick Maclaren" <nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:elp439$hip$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> You're both trolling. It is perfectly reasonable for the police to
> spend time on enforcing such things proportional to the harm that
> such lawbreakers do to other people.
You appear to have totally missed the point.
I was NOT at fault, but the Police treated me like I was. So you are saying
it is reasonable for the Police to harass an innocent motorist because some
other motorist may have broken the law at some point?
J
Chris Shore
"Maneate" <Man...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:SLGdnfPL5ra...@bt.com...
> Need I go on. The Police are blatantly pro-cyclist in Cambridge.
Ho. Ho. According to Mr Maclaren they virtually egg on the bus
drivers to assault cyclists!
Chris
Alan Braggins
>
>Would have been interesting to find out if there was an 'independent person'
>who was never made known to me.
Tony's post didn't suggest there was - the police obviously made themselves
known to you. Or are you suggesting they not only supported the cyclist
in this case, but were in collusion with the cyclist and not independent?
Maneate
"Alan Braggins" <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrneo0ao...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Or are you suggesting they not only supported the cyclist
> in this case, but were in collusion with the cyclist and not independent?
That thought had crossed my mind, and the fact they let him go without any
attempt to obtain name, address, his version of events, etc, supports that
perception.
J
Mike Clark
"Maneate" <Man...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote:
No you're missing the point. It is fairly routine when Police are called
to an RTC involving motor vehicles for them to do a routine check on the
vehicles and drivers. Not to do so would be a dereliction of their duty.
It doesn't imply they think you're guilty, it just means that it is a
reasonable thing for them to check.
If they didn't check these things automatically if you were the one who
called them, then every criminal driver would make a point of calling
the Police first and then blaming the other party.
Do you object to the Police checking your vehicle and your medical
condition for driving? Would you rather they didn't and allowed many
drunk drivers to go free?
Maneate
>
> No you're missing the point. It is fairly routine when Police are called
> to an RTC involving motor vehicles for them to do a routine check on the
> vehicles and drivers. Not to do so would be a dereliction of their duty.
> It doesn't imply they think you're guilty, it just means that it is a
> reasonable thing for them to check.
>
> If they didn't check these things automatically if you were the one who
> called them, then every criminal driver would make a point of calling
> the Police first and then blaming the other party.
>
> Do you object to the Police checking your vehicle and your medical
> condition for driving? Would you rather they didn't and allowed many
> drunk drivers to go free?
>
No I am NOT missing the point. The point is that the cyclist had committed,
or potentially committed, a number of offences. The Police took absolutely
no notice of the complaint I made about the cyclist be verbally aggressive
and using threatening behaviour towards me.
I have no objection to reasonable checks being made on me and my vehicle,
but what happened here was the Police decided arbitrarily to disregard my
complaints and concerns and instead try to find something to stick on me
instead. Never so much as an 'are you OK', 'Sorry for delaying your journey
home' or anything.
The cyclist on the other hand got off Scot free, despite being threatening
and abusive, and being in the wrong. I accept he may not have been arrested
or charged with anything as it was my word against his, but at least the
Police SHOULD have spoken to him, rather than the 'off you go Sir' they
effectively did.
J
Is it any wonder
Ed Weatherup
> In article <4uadivF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Ed Weatherup" <inv...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> Maneate wrote:
>>>
>>>> Need I go on. The Police are blatantly pro-cyclist in Cambridge.
>>>
>>> According to the Cambridge police that I've spoken to they are
>>> under-manned, under-paid and under-appreciated ... *and* messed
>>> about by "Higher Management" so they can't get on and do the job.
>>> When they can get on with the job they are hedged about by
>>> regulation and restriction which also gets in the way and prevents
>>> a common-sense approach[1].
>
> You're both trolling.
No I'm not, at least not under the usual definition of "troll" for this
context.
> It is perfectly reasonable for the police to
> spend time on enforcing such things proportional to the harm that
> such lawbreakers do to other people.
Nothing wrong with the above ...
> Therefore they should spend
> about a thousand times as much time enforcing regulations on motor
> vehicles as they do on enforcing them on bicycles.
... I assume that "a thousand times" above can/should be read as "a huge
amount more" rather than as a calculated factor?
> I'll bet that they spend less than that on motor vehicles relative
> to cyclists!
I'll bet they spend more time on following the rules of procedure, obeying
the whims the of the Management and coping with teh fiddleing about than
they do on either; as I said in previous post
"... so not so much "pro-cyclist" or "pro-motorist" as "pro-easy life" ....
human beings in other words."
--
Ed.
Nick Maclaren
In article <4uatmgF...@mid.individual.net>,
"Ed Weatherup" <inv...@invalid.invalid> writes:
|>
|> > It is perfectly reasonable for the police to
|> > spend time on enforcing such things proportional to the harm that
|> > such lawbreakers do to other people.
|>
|> Nothing wrong with the above ...
|>
|> > Therefore they should spend
|> > about a thousand times as much time enforcing regulations on motor
|> > vehicles as they do on enforcing them on bicycles.
|>
|> ... I assume that "a thousand times" above can/should be read as "a huge
|> amount more" rather than as a calculated factor?
Nope. It means between 500 and 2,000 times, depending on how you
calculate it.
|> I'll bet they spend more time on following the rules of procedure, obeying
|> the whims the of the Management and coping with teh fiddleing about than
|> they do on either; as I said in previous post
|>
|> "... so not so much "pro-cyclist" or "pro-motorist" as "pro-easy life" ....
|> human beings in other words."
I won't deny that, but I will stand up for them, there. They aren't
just looking for an easy life, but attempting to work within the damn
fool rules invented for them by their Lords and Masters in Whitehall.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Ed Weatherup
> In article <4uatmgF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Ed Weatherup" <inv...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>
>
> I won't deny that, but I will stand up for them, there. They aren't
> just looking for an easy life, but attempting to work within the damn
> fool rules invented for them by their Lords and Masters in Whitehall.
>
We are getting close to an agreement here ... the individual officers of my
experience were *now* looking for an easy life *because* they were pissed
off by the damn fool rules invented for them by their Lords and Masters in
Whitehall, especially as several of the damn fool rules are mutually
exclusive.
--
Ed.
Tony Raven
> "Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote in message
> news:4uabdsF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Given your known attitude towards cyclists here, that we only have your
>> account and the way the police responded, this alternative interpretation
>> has a lot to commend it.
>>
>
> Maybe you were that aresehole of a cyclist, or were a witness who knew that
> ALL car drivers are automatically guilty and rang the Police.
>
Sorry I can't oblige. I haven't a clue who is behind that alias of
yours and besides I've never been involved in an incident where the
police were called. You will need to direct your paranoia elsewhere I'm
afraid.
Tony Raven
>
> That thought had crossed my mind, and the fact they let him go without any
> attempt to obtain name, address, his version of events, etc, supports that
> perception.
>
Its a fact of life that one party in such a dispute is always going to
feel they were wronged because the independent party didn't believe
their account over the conflicting account of the other party.
Tony Raven
>
> You appear to have totally missed the point.
>
> I was NOT at fault, but the Police treated me like I was.
I bet the Police and Courts have never heard that one before ;-)
Maneate
>
> Its a fact of life that one party in such a dispute is always going to
> feel they were wronged because the independent party didn't believe their
> account over the conflicting account of the other party.
>
To have had the issue heard would have been a start. They totally ignored my
complaints. As to having 'conflicting accounts', to have done that they
would have had to obtain an account of the incident from the cyclist. They
did not do this at any time so there was no conflicting account, only their
desire to try and get another tick in the box for persecuting an innocent
motorist.
J
Maneate
>
> Sorry I can't oblige. I haven't a clue who is behind that alias of yours
> and besides I've never been involved in an incident where the police were
> called. You will need to direct your paranoia elsewhere I'm afraid.
>
Its not paranoia. Just my perception of how fucking crap Cambs Police Farce
really are.
J
Maneate
> Maneate wrote on 13/12/2006 14:55 +0100:
>>
>> You appear to have totally missed the point.
>>
>> I was NOT at fault, but the Police treated me like I was.
>
> I bet the Police and Courts have never heard that one before ;-)
>
But usually they have the interpretation of the facts from BOTH sides
involved. Which the Police uaually get by questioning all those involved.
Unless these goons had a telepathic link with the fuck-wit cyclist, they did
nothing of the sort.
J
Daveyboy
wrote:
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>> So here is hopefully my final report of recent excitement. (See also
>> `Run into from behind by bus' here[1] and `Garden Walk accident' in
>> cam.misc.[2])
>
>Well done both of you. I'd just add one point:
>
>> Astonishlyly, I was nearly unharmed - the next day I found I had a
>> pulled muscle in my side, which has healed just fine. Futhermore, my
>> bike was also nearly unharmed
>
>Wrong attitude. You *were* injured, your bike *was* damaged. Only
>emphasis on those two points is likely to make the police take the
>incident seriously. I'm delighted they have.
>
>Douglas de Lacey
And so am I, if a taxi driver acts in this manner he deserves to loose
his licence, can you tell me was it a hackney carriage, a city licence
hire car or a SCDC hire car?
not that it makes any difference, just as a personal enquiry
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
> Maneate wrote:
>> "Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:515291944e....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
>>> What was the original issue that needed sorting?
>
> [snip details]
>
>> Need I go on. The Police are blatantly pro-cyclist in Cambridge.
>
> According to the Cambridge police that I've spoken to they are under-manned,
> under-paid and under-appreciated ... *and* messed about by "Higher
> Management" so they can't get on and do the job. When they can get on with
> the job they are hedged about by regulation and restriction which also gets
> in the way and prevents a common-sense approach[1].
The regulations and restrictions are there because they used to just get
on with the job, with fit-ups, mumping and worse being regular
occurrences. Not all officers did stuff, but almost all turned a blind eye.
I wish I was as underpaid as the police. When I worked for a police
training organisation we saved a packet by replacing coppers with civilians.
Mike Clark
Brian Morrison <scra...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> Mike Clark wrote:
> > In message <elomkr$6s3$1...@news.datemas.de>
> > Brian Morrison <scra...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> >> So much easier than dealing with the real issue at hand!
> >>
> >
> > What was the original issue that needed sorting? Was there evidence
> > of damage to the vehicle or injury to a person and a need to
> > exchange insurance details? Were there independent witnesses to any
> > crime, other than the two individuals, i.e. one word against the
> > other? What if any charge would you expect the police to make in
> > such a case?
>
> I wasn't there Mike, but if I arrived somewhere with an irate and
> shouting cyclist and a nervous and quiet car driver explaining calmly
> what had happened I certainly wouldn't automatically assume that the
> latter was the person at fault. Would you?
>
But do we know it wasn't the other way round, particularly given the
angry tirades expressed by the OP in this newsgroup?
Mike Clark
"Maneate" <Man...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> "Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:ef47ac944e....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
> >
> > No you're missing the point. It is fairly routine when Police are called
> > to an RTC involving motor vehicles for them to do a routine check on the
> > vehicles and drivers. Not to do so would be a dereliction of their duty.
> > It doesn't imply they think you're guilty, it just means that it is a
> > reasonable thing for them to check.
> >
> > If they didn't check these things automatically if you were the one who
> > called them, then every criminal driver would make a point of calling
> > the Police first and then blaming the other party.
> >
> > Do you object to the Police checking your vehicle and your medical
> > condition for driving? Would you rather they didn't and allowed many
> > drunk drivers to go free?
> >
>
> No I am NOT missing the point. The point is that the cyclist had
> committed, or potentially committed, a number of offences. The
> Police took absolutely no notice of the complaint I made about the
> cyclist be verbally aggressive and using threatening behaviour
> towards me.
We only have your word for that.
>
> I have no objection to reasonable checks being made on me and my
> vehicle,
Good, so why the tirade of a complaint?
> but what happened here was the Police decided arbitrarily to disregard
> my complaints and concerns and instead try to find something to stick
> on me instead.
No as far as I can see they were making checks on you and your vehicle
which was an entirely reasonable thing for the police to do. That does
not mean that they were trying to "stick something on you instead".
> Never so much as an 'are you OK', 'Sorry for delaying your journey
> home' or anything.
Why should they apologise for doing their job? Didn't you cause your own
delay by calling the police?
>
> The cyclist on the other hand got off Scot free, despite being
> threatening and abusive, and being in the wrong. I accept he may not
> have been arrested or charged with anything as it was my word against
> his,
and that is the key problem. We only have your word for the situation
now, and unfortunately we also probably make a judgement of the
reliability of that accound based on the prejudices you express
elsewhere in this newsgroup. So perhaps the police made a judgement of
the situation and dealt with it as they saw entirely appropriate. An
irate and angry driver who had called them, but little independent
confirmation of who had done or said what to whom. Probably the best way
of sorting out the situation would be to make sure that both parties
went their separate ways without a further possible escalation into a
breach of the peace.
> but at least the Police SHOULD have spoken to him, rather than the
> 'off you go Sir' they effectively did.
Your opinion, not theirs obviously. Perhaps your account is misleading?
>
> J
>
> Is it any wonder
>
Mike Clark
"Maneate" <Man...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote:
So are you suggesting that they were corrupt police officers? By your
own account they did not prosecute you so you haven't previously claimed
that they produced false evidence against you, so it seems strange that
this is your accusation now.
The police are entitled to make checks of you and your vehicle and if
they had discovered a problem with those checks and they then prosecuted
you, then you would not be an "innocent motorist", since there would be
reasonable evidence of a crime to be considered.
Maneate
>>
>> I have no objection to reasonable checks being made on me and my
>> vehicle,
>
> Good, so why the tirade of a complaint?
>
You obviously missed the word 'reasonable'.
>> but what happened here was the Police decided arbitrarily to disregard
>> my complaints and concerns and instead try to find something to stick
>> on me instead.
>
> No as far as I can see they were making checks on you and your vehicle
> which was an entirely reasonable thing for the police to do. That does
> not mean that they were trying to "stick something on you instead".
>
>> Never so much as an 'are you OK', 'Sorry for delaying your journey
>> home' or anything.
>
> Why should they apologise for doing their job? Didn't you cause your own
> delay by calling the police?
I never said they should apologise for doing theie job. However, there is a
thing called 'courtesy', although you may not be familiar with it. When the
Police had found that there was no fault with my vehicle, they could have
thanked me for my co-operation.
>>
>> The cyclist on the other hand got off Scot free, despite being
>> threatening and abusive, and being in the wrong. I accept he may not
>> have been arrested or charged with anything as it was my word against
>> his,
>
> and that is the key problem. We only have your word for the situation
> now, and unfortunately we also probably make a judgement of the
> reliability of that accound based on the prejudices you express
> elsewhere in this newsgroup. So perhaps the police made a judgement of
> the situation and dealt with it as they saw entirely appropriate. An
> irate and angry driver who had called them, but little independent
> confirmation of who had done or said what to whom. Probably the best way
> of sorting out the situation would be to make sure that both parties
> went their separate ways without a further possible escalation into a
> breach of the peace.
Wonderful solution. Let the one who was potentially causing the breach of
the peace go on his way unimpeared, and further inconvenience the innocent
party. Lets hope they do not adopt this policy across the board. Persecute
the victims and let the perpretators go free.
>> but at least the Police SHOULD have spoken to him, rather than the
>> 'off you go Sir' they effectively did.
>
> Your opinion, not theirs obviously. Perhaps your account is misleading?
>
My account is the facts as they happened. The fact that the Police did
nothing about confirming, or repudiating, the statement I made about what
happened shows they are not impartial and had decided I was at fault before
they even arrived on the scene. Hardly the actions of so called
'professionals'.
The experience I had here has severely dented my confidence in the Police,
and I would now think twice before assisting them in any way. Example being
when I saw a cyclist hit by a car some time later. From the unimpeded view
I had the driver was clearly at fault as he pulled out without properly
looking, but I decided I had no wish to become involved with the Police, and
risk being given the third degree for just being there, so I drove on as
soon as I could. In this instance the cyclist got up from the road,
although was obviously bruised and his bike damaged, and maybe I would have
stopped if they had appeared more seriously injured, but would probably not
have voluntered a witness statement. And before you say it, it would not
have made any difference if it had been the cyclist at fault, or if it had
been a car - car collision.
J
Maneate
> In message <MbydnX_LQv4xyR3Y...@bt.com>
> "Maneate" <Man...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ub12hF...@mid.individual.net...
>> >
>> > Its a fact of life that one party in such a dispute is always going
>> > to feel they were wronged because the independent party didn't
>> > believe their account over the conflicting account of the other
>> > party.
>> >
>>
>> To have had the issue heard would have been a start. They totally
>> ignored my complaints. As to having 'conflicting accounts', to have
>> done that they would have had to obtain an account of the incident
>> from the cyclist. They did not do this at any time so there was no
>> conflicting account, only their desire to try and get another tick in
>> the box for persecuting an innocent motorist.
>>
>
> So are you suggesting that they were corrupt police officers?
Possibly, but I would use the term incompetant.
>By your
> own account they did not prosecute you so you haven't previously claimed
> that they produced false evidence against you, so it seems strange that
> this is your accusation now.
Youc are deliberately misinterpreting the statements I have made.
> The police are entitled to make checks of you and your vehicle and if
> they had discovered a problem with those checks and they then prosecuted
> you, then you would not be an "innocent motorist", since there would be
> reasonable evidence of a crime to be considered.
>
There are ways and means of doing what they did/have to do. 10-1 that if a
TV crew had been with them they would have been politeness personified and
done a good job. As it was they left me feeling victimised, and with a very
bad impression of the Police.
J
Mike Clark
"Maneate" <Man...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> "Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3079a0954e....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
> >>
> >> I have no objection to reasonable checks being made on me and my
> >> vehicle,
> >
> > Good, so why the tirade of a complaint?
> >
>
> You obviously missed the word 'reasonable'.
So what unreasonable checks of you and your vehicle did they make?
>
> > > but what happened here was the Police decided arbitrarily to
> > > disregard my complaints and concerns and instead try to find
> > > something to stick on me instead.
> >
> > No as far as I can see they were making checks on you and your
> > vehicle which was an entirely reasonable thing for the police to do.
> > That does not mean that they were trying to "stick something on
> > you instead".
> >
> >> Never so much as an 'are you OK', 'Sorry for delaying your journey
> >> home' or anything.
> >
> > Why should they apologise for doing their job? Didn't you cause your own
> > delay by calling the police?
>
> I never said they should apologise for doing theie job. However,
> there is a thing called 'courtesy', although you may not be familiar
> with it. When the Police had found that there was no fault with my
> vehicle, they could have thanked me for my co-operation.
>
I agree. Thanking you for your co-operation is reasonable courtesy. But
I don't think they need to go as far as apologising for any delay.
I've been stopped several times at road blocks, in France and in New
Zealand, and subjected to checks of paperwork and also breathalyzed. The
police in those countries carry out such checks quite regularly. They
usually explain what they wish you to do, but I can't recollect that
they went out of their way to apologise. Drivers understand that these
checks are made, the police are carrying out their duty and expect the
law abiding motorist to co-operate.
> > >
> > > The cyclist on the other hand got off Scot free, despite being
> > > threatening and abusive, and being in the wrong. I accept he may
> > > not have been arrested or charged with anything as it was my word
> > > against his,
> >
> > and that is the key problem. We only have your word for the situation
> > now, and unfortunately we also probably make a judgement of the
> > reliability of that accound based on the prejudices you express
> > elsewhere in this newsgroup. So perhaps the police made a judgement of
> > the situation and dealt with it as they saw entirely appropriate. An
> > irate and angry driver who had called them, but little independent
> > confirmation of who had done or said what to whom. Probably the best way
> > of sorting out the situation would be to make sure that both parties
> > went their separate ways without a further possible escalation into a
> > breach of the peace.
>
> Wonderful solution. Let the one who was potentially causing the
> breach of the peace go on his way unimpeared, and further
> inconvenience the innocent party. Lets hope they do not adopt this
> policy across the board. Persecute the victims and let the
> perpretators go free.
Stopping a potential breach of the peace before it has happened is a
reasonable action for the police, particularly since without
corroboration there is little chance of them bringing about a
prosecution for an alleged offence that is one word against another.
>
> > > but at least the Police SHOULD have spoken to him, rather than
> > > the 'off you go Sir' they effectively did.
> >
> > Your opinion, not theirs obviously. Perhaps your account is misleading?
> >
>
> My account is the facts as they happened.
So you claim, but we don't have the opinion of either the police or the
cyclist to either corroborate or dispute your account.
> The fact that the Police did nothing about confirming, or
> repudiating, the statement I made about what happened shows they are
> not impartial and had decided I was at fault before they even arrived
> on the scene. Hardly the actions of so called 'professionals'.
How were they going to confirm or repudiate your statement without
independent corroboration?
>
> The experience I had here has severely dented my confidence in the
> Police,
Why? Simply because they did not waste time and money by detaining and
prosecuting a cyclists on uncorroborated evidence that would probably
not stand up in any court of law?
> and I would now think twice before assisting them in any way. Example
> being when I saw a cyclist hit by a car some time later. From the
> unimpeded view I had the driver was clearly at fault as he pulled out
> without properly looking, but I decided I had no wish to become
> involved with the Police, and risk being given the third degree for
> just being there, so I drove on as soon as I could.
Yet more confirmation of your appalling attitude towards others.
> In this instance the cyclist got up from the road, although was
> obviously bruised and his bike damaged, and maybe I would have
> stopped if they had appeared more seriously injured, but would
> probably not have voluntered a witness statement.
> And before you say it, it would not have made any difference if it
> had been the cyclist at fault, or if it had been a car - car
> collision.
>
Then in my opinion you're the worse kind of selfish individual. You
won't do anything to help others, but complain when you don't get your
own way in similar circumstances.
What if you had witnessed a pedestrian being injured, would that have
made a difference? Would it have made a difference if they were a child
or adult, black or white, male or female?
Returning to your original post, what you lacked was an independent
witness to the situation, but you've just admitted that you wouldn't be
prepared to act as one in a similar situation.
I have to say that my experience and attitude is very different to
yours. I've assisted other individuals and also the police on several
occasions by providing a witness statement. I've so far not encountered
any attitude from the police that would make me not do so in the future.
Daveyboy
Probably a very honest impression of the police in Cambridge
Daveyboy
>In message <T9mdnaZVy6G...@bt.com>
> "Maneate" <Man...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ef47ac944e....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
>> >
>> > No you're missing the point. It is fairly routine when Police are called
>> > to an RTC involving motor vehicles for them to do a routine check on the
>> > vehicles and drivers. Not to do so would be a dereliction of their duty.
>> > It doesn't imply they think you're guilty, it just means that it is a
>> > reasonable thing for them to check.
>> >
>> > If they didn't check these things automatically if you were the one who
>> > called them, then every criminal driver would make a point of calling
>> > the Police first and then blaming the other party.
>> >
>> > Do you object to the Police checking your vehicle and your medical
>> > condition for driving? Would you rather they didn't and allowed many
>> > drunk drivers to go free?
>> >
>>
>> No I am NOT missing the point. The point is that the cyclist had
>> committed, or potentially committed, a number of offences. The
>> Police took absolutely no notice of the complaint I made about the
>> cyclist be verbally aggressive and using threatening behaviour
>> towards me.
>
>We only have your word for that.
>
so you are calling maneate a liar then Mike? as far as I can tell you
have taken an instant dislike to him for not being pro cycling and
daring to say anything against the cyclists in this town who at best
are suicidal!
>>
>> I have no objection to reasonable checks being made on me and my
>> vehicle,
>
>Good, so why the tirade of a complaint?
>
>> but what happened here was the Police decided arbitrarily to disregard
>> my complaints and concerns and instead try to find something to stick
>> on me instead.
>
its typical of the police in my experience, that if they can "stick
something on" the motorist they will, its an easy nick, and gets them
up on their figures
>No as far as I can see they were making checks on you and your vehicle
>which was an entirely reasonable thing for the police to do. That does
>not mean that they were trying to "stick something on you instead".
>
>
>> Never so much as an 'are you OK', 'Sorry for delaying your journey
>> home' or anything.
>
>Why should they apologise for doing their job? Didn't you cause your own
>delay by calling the police?
>
>>
>> The cyclist on the other hand got off Scot free, despite being
>> threatening and abusive, and being in the wrong. I accept he may not
>> have been arrested or charged with anything as it was my word against
>> his,
>
>and that is the key problem. We only have your word for the situation
>now, and unfortunately we also probably make a judgement of the
>reliability of that accound based on the prejudices you express
>elsewhere in this newsgroup. So perhaps the police made a judgement of
>the situation and dealt with it as they saw entirely appropriate. An
>irate and angry driver who had called them, but little independent
>confirmation of who had done or said what to whom. Probably the best way
>of sorting out the situation would be to make sure that both parties
>went their separate ways without a further possible escalation into a
>breach of the peace.
>
Again calling maneate a liar? because he has a different point of view
to you, he is now prejudiced? I would say that you are prejudiced
against motorists from some of the post you have made
Maneate
>
> Then in my opinion you're the worse kind of selfish individual. You
> won't do anything to help others, but complain when you don't get your
> own way in similar circumstances.
I would say I am Honest. There are many more out there who would claim they
would help, but if it came to it, they would not. Are they any better than
me, or just more hypocritical? When I was younger I did used to 'get
involved' but found myself on the recieving end of abuse and threats on more
than one occasion. Bitter experience has taught me not to get involved, and
to look the other way if possible. For me, self-preservation beats being a
good smaritan hands down.
> What if you had witnessed a pedestrian being injured, would that have
> made a difference? Would it have made a difference if they were a child
> or adult, black or white, male or female?
It would make little difference to me, unless I happened to know them
personally. Maybe I am mildly sociopathic in that respect. I would not
leave them bleeding to death without any assistance, but I would not go out
of my way to become involved if others were there to render assiatance. OK
I may ring for an Ambulance if need be, but thats about as far as I would
probably go.
> Returning to your original post, what you lacked was an independent
> witness to the situation, but you've just admitted that you wouldn't be
> prepared to act as one in a similar situation.
I could never say I would never act as a witness again. I have in the
distant past, and either been told to mind my own business, or felt like I
was the one under interrogation, and spending an inordinate amount of time
having to visit the Police at their convenience to help them out. Now it
would depend on circumstances and my personal interpreatation of the
situation. You never know, I might one day be struck by an attack of
conscience.
> I have to say that my experience and attitude is very different to
> yours. I've assisted other individuals and also the police on several
> occasions by providing a witness statement. I've so far not encountered
> any attitude from the police that would make me not do so in the future.
You have been very lucky then, and I honestly hope your faith in them is
never called into question.
J
Mike Clark
"Maneate" <Man...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> "Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:1d3ca1954e....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
> > In message <MbydnX_LQv4xyR3Y...@bt.com>
> > "Maneate" <Man...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4ub12hF...@mid.individual.net...
> >> >
> >> > Its a fact of life that one party in such a dispute is always going
> >> > to feel they were wronged because the independent party didn't
> >> > believe their account over the conflicting account of the other
> >> > party.
> >> >
> >>
> >> To have had the issue heard would have been a start. They totally
> >> ignored my complaints. As to having 'conflicting accounts', to have
> >> done that they would have had to obtain an account of the incident
> >> from the cyclist. They did not do this at any time so there was no
> >> conflicting account, only their desire to try and get another tick in
> >> the box for persecuting an innocent motorist.
> >>
> >
> > So are you suggesting that they were corrupt police officers?
>
> Possibly, but I would use the term incompetant.
Why? They resolved a situation without wasting too much police or court
time.
>
> > By your own account they did not prosecute you so you haven't
> > previously claimed that they produced false evidence against you, so
> > it seems strange that this is your accusation now.
>
> Youc are deliberately misinterpreting the statements I have made.
>
You clearly stated.
"Only their desire to try and get another tick in the box for
persecuting an innocent motorist."
But since you also state that they didn't prosecute it would seem that
your allegation as to motive is not founded on any obvious evidence of
substance.
If however on finding no fault with your vehicle, you alleged that one
of them then kicked in a rear lamp for example and then charged you with
the defect, I might start to have some sympathy with you.
> > The police are entitled to make checks of you and your vehicle and
> > if they had discovered a problem with those checks and they then
> > prosecuted you, then you would not be an "innocent motorist", since
> > there would be reasonable evidence of a crime to be considered.
> >
>
> There are ways and means of doing what they did/have to do. 10-1 that
> if a TV crew had been with them they would have been politeness
> personified and done a good job. As it was they left me feeling
> victimised, and with a very bad impression of the Police.
>
You've clearly got some kind of major persecution complex or chip on
your shoulder.
Maneate
>
> "Only their desire to try and get another tick in the box for
> persecuting an innocent motorist."
>
> But since you also state that they didn't prosecute it would seem that
> your allegation as to motive is not founded on any obvious evidence of
> substance.
>
Persecution takes many forms.
> If however on finding no fault with your vehicle, you alleged that one
> of them then kicked in a rear lamp for example and then charged you with
> the defect, I might start to have some sympathy with you.
Not even Cambridge Police are THAT stupid (I hope).
>> > The police are entitled to make checks of you and your vehicle and
>> > if they had discovered a problem with those checks and they then
>> > prosecuted you, then you would not be an "innocent motorist", since
>> > there would be reasonable evidence of a crime to be considered.
>> >
>>
>> There are ways and means of doing what they did/have to do. 10-1 that
>> if a TV crew had been with them they would have been politeness
>> personified and done a good job. As it was they left me feeling
>> victimised, and with a very bad impression of the Police.
>>
>
> You've clearly got some kind of major persecution complex or chip on
> your shoulder.
No, just an intollersance of paying large sums of money to fund an alleged
Public Service that does not deliver 90% of what it claims to.
J
Mike Clark
Daveyboy <m...@them.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:21:50 GMT, Mike Clark <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
[snip]
> >
> >We only have your word for that.
> >
> so you are calling maneate a liar then Mike?
No I'm making a factual observation.
Please point me to the posts from any others who were part of, or who
witnessed the events described by the OP?
> as far as I can tell you have taken an instant dislike to him for not
> being pro cycling and daring to say anything against the cyclists in
> this town who at best are suicidal!
Actually my dislike has not been instant but my gradually informed
opinion is that by his own admission Maneate is someone without the
social conscience to offer assistance to a fellow human in need. I tend
to respect those who help others in need and dislike those who don't.
He clearly expects the police to do his personal bidding, but is
reluctant to help them when it comes to be needed by a third party.
Do you have a problem with my attitude on these points?
> and daring to say anything against the cyclists in this town who at
> best are suicidal!
So just what percentage of cyclists in Cambridge succeed in committing
suicide each year? Then give me the figures for pedestrians and
motorists to compare.
> > >
> > > I have no objection to reasonable checks being made on me and my
> > > vehicle,
> >
> >Good, so why the tirade of a complaint?
> >
> >> but what happened here was the Police decided arbitrarily to disregard
> >> my complaints and concerns and instead try to find something to stick
> >> on me instead.
> >
> its typical of the police in my experience, that if they can "stick
> something on" the motorist they will, its an easy nick, and gets them
> up on their figures
>
But in most cases the motorists have committed a crime haven't they?
> > No as far as I can see they were making checks on you and your
> > vehicle which was an entirely reasonable thing for the police to do.
> > That does not mean that they were trying to "stick something on
> > you instead".
> >
> >
> >> Never so much as an 'are you OK', 'Sorry for delaying your journey
> >> home' or anything.
> >
> > Why should they apologise for doing their job? Didn't you cause your
> > own delay by calling the police?
> >
> >>
> >> The cyclist on the other hand got off Scot free, despite being
> >> threatening and abusive, and being in the wrong. I accept he may not
> >> have been arrested or charged with anything as it was my word against
> >> his,
> >
> > and that is the key problem. We only have your word for the
> > situation now, and unfortunately we also probably make a judgement
> > of the reliability of that accound based on the prejudices you
> > express elsewhere in this newsgroup. So perhaps the police made a
> > judgement of the situation and dealt with it as they saw entirely
> > appropriate. An irate and angry driver who had called them, but
> > little independent confirmation of who had done or said what to
> > whom. Probably the best way of sorting out the situation would be to
> > make sure that both parties went their separate ways without a
> > further possible escalation into a breach of the peace.
> >
> Again calling maneate a liar?
No I'm making a factual observation and a reasonable speculation.
> because he has a different point of view to you, he is now prejudiced?
> I would say that you are prejudiced against motorists from some of the
> post you have made
You might choose to make that assumption but as a counter to that I
should point out that I drive approximately 15,000 miles a year, I own
a car, I pay VED, have insurance, and, I also have a full driving
licence for cars and motorcycles.
So I'm a motorist too.
I think if you read my posts more carefully you'll see that I if
anything prejudiced against those who demonstrate inconsiderate,
intolerant and bad behaviour.
Maneate
>
> I tend
> to respect those who help others in need and dislike those who don't.
Do the people you respect have to prove they have helped others in need
first? Or do you base it on what they say or imply? As I said in another
post, there are a lot of hypocrites out there who will claim they will
always help a person in need, until it comes to it. And what is worse, IMO,
is those who 'help out' for self serving reasons, IE Celebrities who help
one night a year at soup kitchens, and the like.
> He clearly expects the police to do his personal bidding, but is
> reluctant to help them when it comes to be needed by a third party.
I do not expect the police to do my bidding. What I expect from a public
service that I constribute towards the running of, is a fair, impartail,
professional approach to dealing with the public.
>
> Do you have a problem with my attitude on these points?
You have the right to say what you like. That fact I think you are a sadly
misguided individual is broadly irrelevant to the discussion.
>
>> and daring to say anything against the cyclists in this town who at
>> best are suicidal!
>
> So just what percentage of cyclists in Cambridge succeed in committing
> suicide each year? Then give me the figures for pedestrians and
> motorists to compare.
Your taking a well known turn of phrase literally to obtain cheap points.
>> > >
>> > > I have no objection to reasonable checks being made on me and my
>> > > vehicle,
>> >
>> >Good, so why the tirade of a complaint?
>> >
>> >> but what happened here was the Police decided arbitrarily to disregard
>> >> my complaints and concerns and instead try to find something to stick
>> >> on me instead.
>> >
>> its typical of the police in my experience, that if they can "stick
>> something on" the motorist they will, its an easy nick, and gets them
>> up on their figures
>>
>
> But in most cases the motorists have committed a crime haven't they?
As have cyclists who jump red traffic lights, cycle the wrong way down one
way streets and do not use lights. But it is gharder for the Police to
enforce these are there is no quick and easy way of identifying them (ie
Index plates).
I am finding this difficult, but in your last paragraph we appear to be
agreeing on something. One of us must be out of step here.
J
Mike Clark
"Maneate" <Man...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> "Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:7b62ad954e....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
> >
> > I tend
> > to respect those who help others in need and dislike those who don't.
>
> Do the people you respect have to prove they have helped others in
> need first? Or do you base it on what they say or imply? As I said
> in another post, there are a lot of hypocrites out there who will
> claim they will always help a person in need, until it comes to it.
> And what is worse, IMO, is those who 'help out' for self serving
> reasons, IE Celebrities who help one night a year at soup kitchens,
> and the like.
I would say that accumulative actions are important in forming a full
opinion.
I spend a lot of time in situations where there is some risk and where
you rely on others to look out for each other. For example when caving,
climbing, or ski-mountaineering, other members of the team all need to
pull their weight and look out for risks to the whole party, not just
themselves. If you're just about to descend down a rope into the abyss,
you've got to have some faith that the individual who rigged the pitch
has done so with some due care and attention. If you're just about to
ski across an avalanche prone slope you have to have some faith that
your colleagues would know how to man a rescue, and know how to use
their avalanche transceivers.
I would be prepared, in a calculated way, to put my own life at risk in
order to go to the aid of another.
>
> > He clearly expects the police to do his personal bidding, but is
> > reluctant to help them when it comes to be needed by a third party.
>
> I do not expect the police to do my bidding. What I expect from a
> public service that I constribute towards the running of, is a fair,
> impartail, professional approach to dealing with the public.
But clearly your view of what is fair and impartial may not be objective
or pragmatic.
> >
> > Do you have a problem with my attitude on these points?
>
> You have the right to say what you like. That fact I think you are a
> sadly misguided individual
Misguided? In what way?
> is broadly irrelevant to the discussion.
Ah so we don't need to consider it then do we!
;-)
> >
> > > and daring to say anything against the cyclists in this town who
> > > at best are suicidal!
> >
> > So just what percentage of cyclists in Cambridge succeed in
> > committing suicide each year? Then give me the figures for
> > pedestrians and motorists to compare.
>
> Your taking a well known turn of phrase literally to obtain cheap
> points.
No they are not cheap points. The problem is that many of the viewpoints
cannot be substantiated with hard evidence or facts.
[snip]
> >> its typical of the police in my experience, that if they can "stick
> >> something on" the motorist they will, its an easy nick, and gets them
> >> up on their figures
> >>
> >
> > But in most cases the motorists have committed a crime haven't they?
>
> As have cyclists who jump red traffic lights, cycle the wrong way down
> one way streets and do not use lights.
I would have no objection to the Police enforcing these laws and
prosecuting cyclists for such actions. Indeed I often criticise other
cyclists for not obeying the law.
> But it is gharder for the Police to enforce these are there is no
> quick and easy way of identifying them (ie Index plates).
>
But it is very easy to stop and fine cyclists for such offences.
[snip]
> >
> > I think if you read my posts more carefully you'll see that I if
> > anything prejudiced against those who demonstrate inconsiderate,
> > intolerant and bad behaviour.
> >
>
> I am finding this difficult, but in your last paragraph we appear to be
> agreeing on something. One of us must be out of step here.
>
Why do you find it difficult?
I've never as far as I recall condoned bad behaviour on these groups.
What I sometimes do is point out that actions that are illegal are not
necessarily unsafe. Just as actions that are legal are not necessarily
safe. Too many people on this newsgroup seem to confuse different
aspects of concepts and misrepresent factual evidence in support of
their arguments.
Maneate
And clearly your view of my opinion is also not objective or pragmatic. You
are looking pruely from your point of view so are unable to see mine.
>> >
>> > Do you have a problem with my attitude on these points?
>>
>> You have the right to say what you like. That fact I think you are a
>> sadly misguided individual
>
> Misguided? In what way?
You have made incorrect assumptions, some of which appear to be based on
certain opinions that you have about me. These are misguided, in my
opinion, as you are not in possesion of all the facts about me. To my
friends I am very loyal and supportive, and would do almost anything for
them. However, it takes a long time to get there as I find it hard to trust
people.
>> is broadly irrelevant to the discussion.
>
> Ah so we don't need to consider it then do we!
Probably not know.
>> >
>> > > and daring to say anything against the cyclists in this town who
>> > > at best are suicidal!
>> >
>> > So just what percentage of cyclists in Cambridge succeed in
>> > committing suicide each year? Then give me the figures for
>> > pedestrians and motorists to compare.
>>
>> Your taking a well known turn of phrase literally to obtain cheap
>> points.
>
> No they are not cheap points. The problem is that many of the viewpoints
> cannot be substantiated with hard evidence or facts.
Many viewpoints cannot be substantiated *WITH* hard facts, as facts are open
to manipulation and interpretation to suite the side of the argument being
supported.
>
> [snip]
>> >> its typical of the police in my experience, that if they can "stick
>> >> something on" the motorist they will, its an easy nick, and gets them
>> >> up on their figures
>> >>
>> >
>> > But in most cases the motorists have committed a crime haven't they?
>>
>> As have cyclists who jump red traffic lights, cycle the wrong way down
>> one way streets and do not use lights.
>
> I would have no objection to the Police enforcing these laws and
> prosecuting cyclists for such actions. Indeed I often criticise other
> cyclists for not obeying the law.
>
>> But it is gharder for the Police to enforce these are there is no
>> quick and easy way of identifying them (ie Index plates).
>>
>
> But it is very easy to stop and fine cyclists for such offences.
But as a cyclist has no easy way of being identified, they dont have index
plates on the bikes, so if they have no identification on them it takes more
efffort, or they give false credentials and then throw the ticket away
around the next corner? Motorists are an easier target for the Police as
the cars can be ID'd.
> [snip]
>> >
>> > I think if you read my posts more carefully you'll see that I if
>> > anything prejudiced against those who demonstrate inconsiderate,
>> > intolerant and bad behaviour.
>> >
>>
>> I am finding this difficult, but in your last paragraph we appear to be
>> agreeing on something. One of us must be out of step here.
>>
>
> Why do you find it difficult?
[Note to self: Smilies again!!! Must use them!]
>
> I've never as far as I recall condoned bad behaviour on these groups.
> What I sometimes do is point out that actions that are illegal are not
> necessarily unsafe. Just as actions that are legal are not necessarily
> safe. Too many people on this newsgroup seem to confuse different
> aspects of concepts and misrepresent factual evidence in support of
> their arguments.
>
There are very few absolute facts discussed here. Most 'facts' are really
opinions of situations, therefore much harder to draw absoute conclusions
on.
J
Mike Clark
"Maneate" <Man...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> "Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:0aeaa6954e....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
> >
> > Then in my opinion you're the worse kind of selfish individual. You
> > won't do anything to help others, but complain when you don't get your
> > own way in similar circumstances.
>
> I would say I am Honest.
So if the police asked you whether you saw anything and what you saw
you'd tell the truth?
Ah I see what you mean. Your not so much honest, but you do admit to
not volunteering the truth.......
> There are many more out there who would claim they would help, but if
> it came to it, they would not. Are they any better than me, or just
> more hypocritical? When I was younger I did used to 'get involved'
> but found myself on the recieving end of abuse and threats on more
> than one occasion.
Sometimes you have to take a stand for what you believe in, even at some
risk to yourself.
> Bitter experience has taught me not to get involved, and to look the
> other way if possible. For me, self-preservation beats being a good
> smaritan hands down.
>
> > What if you had witnessed a pedestrian being injured, would that
> > have made a difference? Would it have made a difference if they were
> > a child or adult, black or white, male or female?
>
> It would make little difference to me, unless I happened to know them
> personally.
You only help your immediate friends and family and don't care about
anyone else.
> Maybe I am mildly sociopathic in that respect. I would not leave
> them bleeding to death without any assistance, but I would not go out
> of my way to become involved if others were there to render
> assiatance. OK I may ring for an Ambulance if need be, but thats
> about as far as I would probably go.
I'm the kind of person who would volunteer assistance if I felt I could
make a positive contribution, even if it might put me in some discomfort
or even some risk.
>
> > Returning to your original post, what you lacked was an independent
> > witness to the situation, but you've just admitted that you wouldn't
> > be prepared to act as one in a similar situation.
>
> I could never say I would never act as a witness again. I have in the
> distant past, and either been told to mind my own business, or felt
> like I was the one under interrogation, and spending an inordinate
> amount of time having to visit the Police at their convenience to
> help them out. Now it would depend on circumstances and my personal
> interpreatation of the situation. You never know, I might one day be
> struck by an attack of conscience.
>
> > I have to say that my experience and attitude is very different to
> > yours. I've assisted other individuals and also the police on
> > several occasions by providing a witness statement. I've so far not
> > encountered any attitude from the police that would make me not do
> > so in the future.
>
> You have been very lucky then, and I honestly hope your faith in them
> is never called into question.
I don't have blind faith in "them" since I realise that many of "them"
are people like you. On the other hand I know that there are many others
who are like me and would offer to come to my assistance. Thus I'd like
to work on the default position that I'd help where I feel able and
recognise that for some individuals they'll turn out to be selfish and
ungrateful.
Mike Clark
"Maneate" <Man...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> "Mike Clark" <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:9618b6954e....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
[snip]
> >
> > Misguided? In what way?
>
> You have made incorrect assumptions, some of which appear to be based on
> certain opinions that you have about me. These are misguided, in my
> opinion, as you are not in possesion of all the facts about me. To my
> friends I am very loyal and supportive, and would do almost anything for
> them. However, it takes a long time to get there as I find it hard to trust
> people.
So you seem to operate on a default position of mistrust whilst my
default is trust. For you trust is earn't slowly, whilst for me trust is
eroded slowly.
[snip]
> >
> > No they are not cheap points. The problem is that many of the viewpoints
> > cannot be substantiated with hard evidence or facts.
>
> Many viewpoints cannot be substantiated *WITH* hard facts, as facts
> are open to manipulation and interpretation to suite the side of the
> argument being supported.
Yes but I'm a scientist, I like looking at the evidence and finding out
the facts. I also like uncovering evidence of manipulation or poor
interpretation of the facts. It's part of what makes life interesting to
me. Where there are no hard facts there is obviously uncertainty and
that too needs to be understood.
[snip]
> >
> > But it is very easy to stop and fine cyclists for such offences.
>
> But as a cyclist has no easy way of being identified,
They're often the ones in possession of the objects called bicycles, I
think you'll find.
> they dont have index plates on the bikes,
which could be falsified if they were introduced
> so if they have no identification on them it takes more efffort,
> or they give false credentials and then throw the ticket away around
> the next corner?
As can a motorist.
> Motorists are an easier target for the Police as the cars can be
> ID'd.
It is reasonable to do this because of the costs to society resulting
from use of motor vehicles. Drivers of motor vehicles are responsible
for large amounts of property damage, injury and death. It costs an
enormous amount of money to maintain and police the roads and to provide
emergency rescue cover.
In contrast have you any idea what would be the costs of maintaining a
national database of bicycles and bicycle registrations? Would we have
to have SORNs for bicycles, MOT certification for bicycles, and also
notification of destruction or sale of bicycles? Who is prepared to pay
for this and police this out of their taxes?
Would this be a proportional response?
[snip]
> >
> > I've never as far as I recall condoned bad behaviour on these
> > groups. What I sometimes do is point out that actions that are
> > illegal are not necessarily unsafe. Just as actions that are legal
> > are not necessarily safe. Too many people on this newsgroup seem to
> > confuse different aspects of concepts and misrepresent factual
> > evidence in support of their arguments.
> >
>
> There are very few absolute facts discussed here. Most 'facts' are
> really opinions of situations, therefore much harder to draw absoute
> conclusions on.
>
I absolutely agree with you on this. That's why I keep pointing out that
we only have your side of events, and much of what you have said in this
thread is uncorroborated and unsubstantiated. That's a fact that is hard
to dispute.
However what you have also revealed in this thread is a degree of
selfishness and a lack of responsibility towards others in need. So why
do you expect others to feel sympathy towards you, or care for your
point of view? If you don't care for others, why do you expect them to
care for you? If you don't make a contribution to society why do you
expect society to look after you?
Maneate
>
> So you seem to operate on a default position of mistrust whilst my
> default is trust. For you trust is earn't slowly, whilst for me trust is
> eroded slowly.
After being bitten a number of times, cynicism sets in.
J
The Luggage
[snip]
> I would say I am Honest. There are many more out there who would claim they
> would help, but if it came to it, they would not. Are they any better than
> me, or just more hypocritical? When I was younger I did used to 'get
> involved' but found myself on the recieving end of abuse and threats on more
> than one occasion. Bitter experience has taught me not to get involved, and
> to look the other way if possible. For me, self-preservation beats being a
> good smaritan hands down.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing" Edmund Burke
TL
Diana Galletly
I'm not entirely sure what my default position is. If asked, I'd have
instinctively said "trust has to be earned" but I've been bitten quite
spectacularly at least twice and possibly three times this year. In one
of those cases, my initial instinct was to distrust, but I later felt
ashamed of my cynical nature with regard to that person and decided to trust
them -- more fool me. In another case, they seemed fine to start with, so
I trusted them, but there were warning signs quite early on that I failed
to act on. In the third case, I've yet to see how it'll all pan out, but
I doubt it'll be well.
Oh, actually, I've been semi-bitten a fourth time; my initial feelings with
regard to that person were a milder form of those concerning the first person.
--
+ Diana Galletly <gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> +
+ http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly +
Maneate
"Diana Galletly" <gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:iue*S1...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
> I'm not entirely sure what my default position is. If asked, I'd have
> instinctively said "trust has to be earned" but I've been bitten quite
> spectacularly at least twice and possibly three times this year. In one
> of those cases, my initial instinct was to distrust, but I later felt
> ashamed of my cynical nature with regard to that person and decided to
> trust
> them -- more fool me. In another case, they seemed fine to start with, so
> I trusted them, but there were warning signs quite early on that I failed
> to act on. In the third case, I've yet to see how it'll all pan out, but
> I doubt it'll be well.
>
> Oh, actually, I've been semi-bitten a fourth time; my initial feelings
> with
> regard to that person were a milder form of those concerning the first
> person.
> --
After the comments I made the other day I have been thinking about what I
really believe (was having a bit of a black period then).
It would probably be more accurate to say I would help people I do not know
IF I was not putting myself in any serious danger and if I did not feel
threatened in any way. People I know and respect I would be prepared to
taka a greater risk for.
Unfortunately there are a number of people I really do think I would
struggle to help at all.
Also just finished watching the BBC2 program about the loss of the Solomon
Brown, and it left me feeling somewhat numbed by their total commitment and
sacrifice. I know it is something I could never give.
J
Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>I went to the station to make a proper report, but they were too busy
>and said they'd come and visit. After several missed attempts (it
>must have been a busy weekend), the police finally managed to catch up
>with me and take a statement. They sent an officer who had cycled in
>Cambridge! Who knew what I was talking about! Who was sympathetic!
>
>They took the details of the witnesses etc. and said they would
>prosecute for dangerous driving.
I just thought I'd keep you posted about this: as of last week they'd
spoken to some but not all of the witnesses and not properly
interviewed the driver either, but they plan to prosecute for careless
(not dangerous) driving.
The taxi licensing office are going to wait with doing anything until
the police have finished.
In other semi-related news, I just got phoned by a market research
company working on behalf of the Cambridgeshire police. The person I
spoke to was apparently barely literate, and the survey asked the
usual kinds of inane questions, but I went through it anyway.
I infer from the questions that the new call centre arrangement is
supposed to be able to actually sometimes answer questions and even
tell you, without being asked, how your case is going.
Of course in practice you get a switchboard operator who just puts you
through to the `service centre' (I was asked whether the switchboard
operator was sympathetic and gave me the reassurance I wanted!) and a
`service centre' operator who has no information and no ability to do
anything, so just acts as a messaging service to get the police
officer responsible to phone you back.
Maybe this kind of thing is what `customer-focused' policing means.
I see that
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/community-policing/customer-service/
mentions a `national strategy to improve call handling'.
Can we please please abolish the Home Office ?
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Daveyboy
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <O4d*eb...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>I went to the station to make a proper report, but they were too busy
>>and said they'd come and visit. After several missed attempts (it
>>must have been a busy weekend), the police finally managed to catch up
>>with me and take a statement. They sent an officer who had cycled in
>>Cambridge! Who knew what I was talking about! Who was sympathetic!
>>
>>They took the details of the witnesses etc. and said they would
>>prosecute for dangerous driving.
>
>I just thought I'd keep you posted about this: as of last week they'd
>spoken to some but not all of the witnesses and not properly
>interviewed the driver either, but they plan to prosecute for careless
>(not dangerous) driving.
>
>The taxi licensing office are going to wait with doing anything until
>the police have finished.
>
That's typical of the licensing office, too scared to do anything, if
the guy is guilty of being prosecuted for careless driving, he should
be suspended from duty until it is proved weather or not he is safe to
drive on the road, instead Mr Miller decides to wait and see, and then
kick the guy after he is down, instead of being a man about it,
growing a set of balls and making a decision on what is best for the
situation
Jonathan Amery
Daveyboy <m...@them.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>That's typical of the licensing office, too scared to do anything, if
>the guy is guilty of being prosecuted for careless driving, he should
>be suspended from duty until it is proved weather or not he is safe to
>drive on the road, instead Mr Miller decides to wait and see, and then
>kick the guy after he is down, instead of being a man about it,
>growing a set of balls and making a decision on what is best for the
>situation
Just like you're too scared to grow a set of balls and admit who you are?
--
Jonathan Amery. Oh, Master, grant that I may never seek
##### So much to be consoled as to console;
#######__o To be understood as to understand;
#######'/ To be loved as to love with all my soul.
Mike Clark
Daveyboy <m...@them.com.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
>
> That's typical of the licensing office, too scared to do anything, if
> the guy is guilty of being prosecuted for careless driving, he should
> be suspended from duty until it is proved weather or not he is safe to
> drive on the road, instead Mr Miller decides to wait and see, and then
> kick the guy after he is down, instead of being a man about it,
> growing a set of balls and making a decision on what is best for the
> situation
If it's typical of the licensing office not to do anything why do you
make such a big point about hiding your real identity from Mr Miller?
Jennifer Liddle
> That's typical of the licensing office, too scared to do anything, if
> the guy is guilty of being prosecuted for careless driving, he should
> be suspended from duty until it is proved weather or not he is safe to
> drive on the road,
Have you ever heard the expression 'innocent until proven guilty'?
Also, this is not Mr Miller's decison; in this case he is simply following
council policy. If you don't like the policy then you should complain to
me rather than the licensing office.
My address to send your complaint to is on the council website.
Please be aware that I do not respond to anonymous complaints.
--
Jennifer Liddle http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP Key: http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl/pgpkey.html
A nation ... is just a society for hating foreigners. - Olaf Stapledon
Mark Ayliffe
Jennifer Liddle <js...@sanger.ac.uk> illuminated us with:
> Daveyboy wrote:
>
>> That's typical of the licensing office, too scared to do anything, if
>> the guy is guilty of being prosecuted for careless driving, he should
>> be suspended from duty until it is proved weather or not he is safe to
>> drive on the road,
>
> Have you ever heard the expression 'innocent until proven guilty'?
My first reaction is that if a teacher can be suspended while under
investigation even for alleged (i.e. not necessarily ever charged)
professional misconduct, why can't a taxi driver have his licence
suspended when charged with a driving offence? I guess that there are
other aspects, not least that I suspect that a teacher is suspended on
full pay, wheras a self-employed taxi driver would be immediately out
of work. So of course the taxi driver might reasonably expect
compensation if the charges were dropped or she were found innocent in
court.
The obvious corollory is that taxi drivers would have to have and keep
clean driving licences. Although I manage that driving under 10k miles
per year, I suspect that might be rather harder for a taxi driver.
--
Mark
Real email address |
is mark at | I never drink when I fly. -Superman
ayliffe dot org |
Ian Jackson
Cambridge
xxxxx
13th May 2007
Professional Standards Department
Cambridgeshire Constabulary
Hinchingbrooke Park
Huntingdon
PE29 6NP
Poor performance by the Constabulary (regarding incident
xxxx of 2006-12-01)
Dear Sir or Madam
I'm writing to complain about inadequate diligence, and
inadequate communication, on the part of Cambridgeshire
Constabulary.
Narrative
On Friday the 1st of December I was riding my pushbike
in Cambridge. To cut a long story short, a taxi driver
intending to intimidate me misjudged and collided with me
from behind.
My partner reported the incident to you immediately;
I collected the names and telephone numbers of three
independent witnesses, some of whom had spontaneously
approached me to give their details after they had heard the
taxi driver lying about what had happened.
After some minor difficulty getting in touch with you, I was
interviewed reasonably promptly and gave a statement. The
investigating officer told me then that a prosecution for
Driving Without Due Care would be likely.
Since then I have heard nothing from the Police. I have on
at least four (more, I think) occasions attempted to enquire
as to the progress of my case but none of your call centre
staff had any information. On several of these occasions
I was told that your operator had left messages with the
investigating officer, or their colleages, asking for me to
be phoned back, but that generally didn't happen.
I did manage to speak to the investigating officer around
Christmas and was told that the incident had been downgraded
but that none of the witnesses had been spoken to yet. My
attempts to get any information since then have been to
no avail.
At the time I reported the incident to your colleagues,
I also wrote to the Cambridge City Council Taxi Licensing
section. However, they told me they would have to wait for
your investigations to conclude. They advised me that it
would be best if I were chase you regularly, which as you
see above I attempted to do without success.
Complaints
Firstly, the case was not investigated with any diligence.
No statement was taken from my partner, for example, who was
one of the principal witnesses.
Secondly, it was not appropriate to drop the case. There
appears to have been no good reason. If the witnesses were
interviewed promptly they would have given a clear account
of the incident.
Thirdly, it is unreasonable that I was not told of the
progress of the case. There has been a systematic failure
to keep me informed at all. I should have been notified in
writing when a decision was taken to take no further action.
In particular, as the victim of this crime I'm astonished to
receive a letter dated the 8th of May from the Council Taxi
Licensing section informing me that you were going to take
no action.
Cases like this one are the tip of an iceberg of unreported
harassment of cyclists by a small but highly visible
minority of aggressive and intimidating drivers. The
Constabulary should treat them as crimes against the person,
not as `mere' motoring offences.
The absurd position now is that if serious offences such as
this one are committed by taxi drivers, the best response
by the victim is not even to consider trying to secure a
prosecution. The Taxi Licensing office have been helpful
and diligent throughout and left me in no doubt that this
matter would be taken seriously by them.
Please write and tell me what you will do to improve the
treatment of cyclists by your colleagues.
Yours faithfully
Dr Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Poor performance by the Constabulary (regarding incident
> xxxx of 2006-12-01)
> Thirdly, it is unreasonable that I was not told of the
> progress of the case. There has been a systematic failure
> to keep me informed at all. I should have been notified in
> writing when a decision was taken to take no further action.
> In particular, as the victim of this crime I'm astonished to
> receive a letter dated the 8th of May from the Council Taxi
> Licensing section informing me that you were going to take
> no action.
It turns out that the police wrote to the driver to tell them it was
NFA; the driver brought that letter in to the Taxi Licensing office to
show to the staff there.
Colin Rosenstiel
ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
> 13th May 2007
> Professional Standards Department
> Cambridgeshire Constabulary
> Hinchingbrooke Park
> Huntingdon
> PE29 6NP
Have you been in touch with your MP, with particular reference to this
bit:
> Cases like this one are the tip of an iceberg of
> unreported harassment of cyclists by a small but highly
> visible minority of aggressive and intimidating drivers. The
> Constabulary should treat them as crimes against the
> person, not as `mere' motoring offences.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Espen H. Koht
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> It turns out that the police wrote to the driver to tell them it was
> NFA; the driver brought that letter in to the Taxi Licensing office to
> show to the staff there.
And what effect did that have?
mark
"Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2007051...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.co.uk...
The police are possibly not interested as they know the standard of the
Cambridge cyclist, And they know they have no regard for the Law what so
ever, They also Know that most incidents are caused by the cyclist because
of his lack of regard for the Law, I watch every day as the pedestrians have
to swerve out of the cyclists way because some moron let them cycle through
a pedestrian area, And also being a high taxi user I watch the cyclist weave
in and out traffic and if it was not for the drivers ability to see what is
going on then the cyclist would cause far more accidents.
Dave Lloyd
*The* cyclist? There's only one is there? And there'll all as bad as
each other are they? And the good cyclists should suffer as well should
they.
What a repulsive troll! *plonk*
Ian Jackson
It caused the taxi licensing office to write to me to let me know what
was going on. They've given the driver `words of advice' but not
unreasonably don't propose at this stage to go out and interview the
witnesses themselves.
Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Poor performance by the Constabulary (regarding incident
> xxxx of 2006-12-01)
>
> Dear Sir or Madam
Last night I spoke to an Inspector at Parkside who was dealing with my
complaint. It seems that my letter of complaint was treated in the
first instance as a complaint against the investigating officer.
The inspector described how the investigating officer had dealt with
my report: after having taken a statement from me, she (the
investigator) also took a statement from one of the witnesses. He
(the inspector) said that the witness supported my version of events.
She then interviewed the driver. Based on those statements she made a
case file and passed it on thre 22nd of January to the `CJU' to be
considered for prosecution as Driving without due care and attention.
(Apparently the driver claimed in his statement that I stopped in
front of him but in the opinion of the inspector, and presumably of
the investigating officer, the offence would have been committed even
on that version of events; so there didn't seem to be much to be
gained in interviewing further witnesses to further corroborate my
version.)
I agreed with the inspector that, from the information he had
provided, that I have no complaint against the investigating officer.
She seemed to have done a thorough and diligent job and had dealt with
me courteously and professionally and I asked the inspector to pass on
my thanks.
The inspector told me that the CJU had decided on the 28th of February
that prosecution was `not in the public interest'. This information
was in the form of a code rather than a narrative and a rationale was
not immediately available to the inspector during my conversation with
him. The inspector told me that he took `prosecution not in the
public interest' to mean that in the CJU's opinion the offence had
been committed, and that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute.
The CJU would have had `insufficient evidence' available as an
alternative.
I asked the inspector to explain to me what the CJU was. Apparently
it consists of civilians (rather than police officers) employed by the
Constabulary to pre-screen cases before passing them to the CPS. The
inspector said that he wasn't able to deal with complaints against the
CJU. He suggested that the best route of complaint would be to the
Parkside CJU's manager, and he gave me the manager's name. He offered
to pass my letter on to the manager but I said I would rather write a
letter myself. The inspector gave me the CJU's case reference number.
With regard to the fact that I wasn't informed of the decision not to
prosecute, I asked whose job the inspector would have expected that to
be. He said he thought it would be the CJU's. He told me that the
CJU had issued the letter to the taxi driver notifying the driver that
he wouldn't be prosecuted; I asked when that letter was sent but the
inspector felt it would be improper to tell me. I asked whether he
thought the investigating officer would have been told by the CJU that
they had decided to drop the case and the inspector said no;
apparently normally files do not return to the investigating officer
until and unless it goes to court.
The inspector also said that he thought that if I phoned after the
28th of February the call centre ought to have put me in touch with
the CJU rather than the investigating officer. The inspector did say
that the various computer systems were generally not linked up.
The inspector also told me that it was now too late to prosecute due
to a 6 month limit on offences of this kind.
I agreed with the inspector that he would put the substance of our
discussion in writing to me, so that I could sign off on it as a
resolution of my complaint against the individual officer. I gave the
inspector to understand that I would take the matter up with the CJU's
manager.
Having decided that the failings seemed too serious and that I wanted
an at least somewhat independent investigation, I I have just spoken
again on the phone to the Professional Standards Department.
The person I spoke to thought it would be within the inspector's remit
to deal with my complaint against the CJU. He took my phone number
and promised to phone me back, or have the inspector do so.
Daveyboy
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
to be brutally honest, I think you have had a result with
Cambridgeshire Police, I find them to be inadequate at best regardless
of the situation, when I was hit by a hit and run driver, I was
knocked off my motor cycle, the police were not interested in any way
shape or form, about the car driver, all they were interested in was
"were you speeding sir?" they told me there and then NOTHING would be
done, and this was one of the civilians behind the desk, I never saw a
police officer in this case
so I say again, I think you had a result!
Jennifer Liddle
> I asked the inspector to explain to me what the CJU was. Apparently
> it consists of civilians (rather than police officers) employed by the
> Constabulary to pre-screen cases before passing them to the CPS.
Coo! I'd never heard of the CJU before. Thanks very much for posting this
Ian, it's very interesting.
--
Jennifer Liddle http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP Key: http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl/pgpkey.html
If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not
believe in it at all. - Noam Chomsky
Ian Jackson
post about some of the more recent events here for tactical reasons
which don't apply any more.
For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, here's a
summary:
* In late December, a taxi driver intending to intimidate me drove
into the back of me, throwing me off my bike, in front of three
independent witnesses.
* I reported it to the police who failed to prosecute the driver,
sent the driver a letter saying he wasn't to be prosecuted but told
me nothing, etc.
* I complained to the police who said it wasn't "in the public
interest" to prosecute, misquoted CPS guidance to me, etc.
If you want a longer summary, I suggest skipping to my IPCC appeal
letter a copy of which is below.
So, to bring you up to speed:
* As I said on the 11th of June I was promised a follow-up
of my complaint against the Criminal Justice Unit (who were
responsible for the decision not to prosecute).
* I didn't get a phone call. Instead, a few weeks later I received a
letter from the Inspector claiming to have dealt with my complaint,
followed by another copy of the same letter from the Professional
Standards Department. This letter was totally useless and you can
find a copy of it below.
* I wrote to the IPCC to appeal. See below.
* I have now had the IPCC's response and they have upheld my
complaint. There's a copy of that below as well. However, I'm
really quite unimpressed with them too.
It seems to me that the police have been given a bollocking for not
doing their paperwork properly, but nothing of any substance was
addressed by the IPCC.
Reading the IPCC report it seems like the complaint handling and IPCC
process has been designed to prevent people from escalating complaints
the police have failed to deal with properly. The idea, apparently,
is that you get the complainant to sign a form at the beginning saying
that they consent to "local resolution". This happens before you do
any investigation. And then you investigate and no doubt with
astonishment find that all of your officers acted perfectly properly
and that the complaint is unjustified. Now the complaintant appeals
to the IPCC and gets told that they're not allowed to appeal against
the "outcome" of the "local resolution"; they can only appeal if they
can show that you didn't "follow" whatever vague "action plan" you put
on the form and got the complainant to agree to.
The IPCC have remanded my complaint back to the police, which doesn't
seem to me to be appropriate. From a bureaucratic point of view
they're just sending the complaint back to where they feel it ought to
have been, but they've lost sight of the wider purpose of the whole
exercise.
And even on the very narrow grounds they allow themselves the IPCC
have failed to address my point that the matter should have been
treated as one complaint and not two.
We'll see what the police do next.
In the letters below I have removed the names of some of the
individuals involved. PC [H] is the original PC who investigated the
original collision and AFAICT has acted perfectly sensibly
throughout. Inspector [G] was sent by the Professional Standards
Department to deal with my complaint.
-8<-
Our Ref: .... [ logo ]
10th July 2007 Creating a safer
*Cambridgeshire*
Dr. I. Jackson,
Cambridge,
CB4 3PA
Dear Dr Jackson
*Complaint Against Police*
I refer to the complaint you made on 16th May 2007, regarding Police
Constable #### [H].
Inspector [G] has with your consent locally resolved the complaint.
This means that the Constabulary has formally recorded the complaint
and a statutory notice has been served on the officer. I am sorry
you have had cause to complain.
I attach a copy of Inspector [G]'s undated letter forwarded to you
explaining his enquiries.
If you are dissatisfied with the local resolution procedure you have
the right to appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission
(IPCC). You hae 28 days within which to make your appeal to the IPCC.
You are advised to post your appeal in good time to ensure it reaches
the IPCC before the end of the 28th day. The 28th day is 7th August
2007. *Appeals received after 28 days may not be allowed unless there
are exceptional circumstances*.
Yours sincerely
[initials surname]
D/Superintendent
Encs.
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS DEPARTMENT, CAMBRIDGESHIRE CONSTABULARY HEADQUARTERS,
HINCHINGBROOKE PARK, HUNTINGDON, CAMBRIDGESHIRE PE29 6NP
TELEPHONE: 0845 4564564 EXTENSION 2221, FAX: (01480) 422362
------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone: 0845 456 4564
Please ask for: [title] [G]
Your Ref:
Our Ref: ....
Dr I Jackson
9, Montgomery Road,
Cambridge
CB4 3PA
Dear Dr Jackson
*Re: Complaint Against Police*
*Incident CC-######*
Further to our recent telephone conversation, please find enclosed
copies of a Local Resolution Record. Please retain one for your own
records, and sign the other and return it please in the envelope
provided. I hope that you will be happy with the listed actions to
resolve the complaint against the officer, as we discussed.
Having spoken to you about contacting the Criminal Justice Unit (CJU)
directly, I understand that you subsequently spoke to someone in our
Professional Standards Unit at Headquarters, and they have in turn
asked me to also try to address your concerns relating to the decision
not to prosecute. I have been able to speak to the head of CJU, and
hope that this response will satisfy your concerns.
Firstly, I have investigated the original enquiry conducted by PC
[H], and am satisfied that she produced a file sufficient to enable
the CJU to make an informed decision as to a potential prosecution of
the taxi driver involved in the incident with you on 1st December
2006. PC [H] interviewed yourself, the driver, and an independent
witness, placing the evidence thereby gained before her shift
sergeant and then the CJU. The officer also advises me that she
spoke to you on a number of occasions to try to keep you updated as
to the state of her enquiry. Although she spoke to yourself and the
witness during early December, she was not able to speak to the
driver until the middle of January 2007, with the file being
forwarded by her sergeant to CJU on 22nd January.
In arriving at a decision as to whether or not to prosecute, CJU must
give consideration to both the nature of the offence and the public
interest factor. In this case there was some inconsistency in the
evidence, with variations in the accounts, as might of course be
expected, from yourself, the witness and the driver. Either way, the
impact to the bike does not appear to have been great and there was no
reported injury to yourself. In light of this the decision maker
applied the below test, taken from the Charging Standards manual;
However, the public interest does not call for a prosecution in every
case where there is a realistic prospect of conviction for careless
driving.
Public interest will tend to be against a prosecution for careless
driving where :-
The incident involves minimal carelessness (momentary
inattention/minor error of judgement) in frequent situations, for
example, at parking places, roundabouts, junctions or in traffic
queues;
In fairness to the CJU decision maker, both the OIC and her sergeant,
who do of course have some knowledge of the Charging Standards,
recommended that No Further Action be taken. The CJU have the final
say in these matters, and I am advised that in this case the decision
was `borderline', but the NFA decision prevailed.
There is no possibility of that decision being overturned as a
consequence of your complaint.
We have also taken on board your point about not having been kept
informed of the decision making process, as the `aggrieved' party in
this case.
I hope this goes someway to answer your concerns,
Yours sincerely
[firstname lastname]
Inspector ####
-8<-
[address]
Cambridge
[postcode]
Independent Police Complaints Commission
(Central and Eastern England) 31st July 2007
Independent House
Whitwick Business Park
Stenson Road
Coalville
LE67 4JP
CC: Professional Standards Department
Cambridgeshire Constabulary
Hinchingbrooke Park
Huntingdon
PE29 6NP
APPEAL AGAINST PURPORTED LOCAL RESOLUTION
Incident CC-######
Dear Sir or Madam
I'm am writing to appeal against what purports to be a
local resolution of my complaint against the Cambridgeshire
Constabulary.
For a full narrative and description of my complaints, see
below. However, to summarise:
As I was riding my bicycle in Cambridge at about 15mph,
a driver behind me intending to intimidate me sounded
his horn and accelerated aggressively towards me; through
misjugdement or malice he struck me from behind, throwing
me off. There were three independent witnesses as well as
myself and my partner.
The Cambridgeshire Constabulary unreasonably failed to
prosecute, failed to communicate that decision to me
although communicating it to the offender, failed to make
it possible for me to find out the progress of the case, and
prejudiced action against the offender by the Cambridge City
Council Taxi Licensing Office.
In response to my complaint the Constabulary were confused
about the responsibilities of the officer dealing with
my complaint, did not properly investigate the problems,
misquoted CPS guidance, have failed to identify the causes
and remedies, and have without my consent purported to deal
with the matter by local resolution.
NARRATIVE
Collision and subsequent investigation
On Friday the 1st of December I was riding my pushbike
in Cambridge. To cut a long story short, a taxi driver
intending to intimidate me misjudged and collided with me
from behind. I was travelling at about 15mph and thrown
from the bike; luckily I landed on my feet and suffered only
a minor pulled muscle in my trunk.
My partner reported the incident to the police immediately;
I collected the names and telephone numbers of three
independent witnesses, some of whom had spontaneously
approached me to give their details after they had heard the
taxi driver lying about what had happened.
A few days later, after some minor difficulty getting
in touch with the police, I was interviewed reasonably
promptly and gave a statement. The investigating officer
told me then that a prosecution for Dangerous Driving would
be likely.
After that I heard nothing from the Police. On at least
four (more, I think) occasions I attempted to enquire as to
the progress of my case but none of the police's call centre
staff had any information. On several of these occasions
I was told that the operator had left messages with the
investigating officer, or their colleages, asking for me to
be phoned back, but that generally didn't happen.
I did manage to speak to the investigating officer around
Christmas and was told that the incident had been downgraded
(from Dangerous Driving to Driving Without Due Care) but
that none of the witnesses had been spoken to yet. My
attempts to get any information since then were to no avail.
At the same time I reported the incident to the police,
I also wrote to the Cambridge City Council Taxi Licensing
section. However, they told me they would have to wait for
the police investigations to conclude. They advised me that
it would be best if I were chase the police regularly, which
as I explain above I attempted to do without success.
On the 13th of May I received a letter from the Taxi
Licensing office saying that as the police weren't going to
prosecute, the Taxi Licensing office didn't propose to take
any more action themselves.
I immediately wrote to the Cambridgeshire Constabulary
to complain.
I also asked the Taxi Licensing office how they knew there
was not going to be a prosecution and was told that the taxi
driver had brought in a letter from the police saying that
he was not going to be prosecuted.
Handling of my complaint against the police
On the 2nd of June I received an email from Inspector
[firstname] [G] (who'd had some difficulty contacting me as
my phone number had changed) and on the 4th or 5th of June
we managed to have a substantial phone conversation.
During the call I mentioned the letter to the offender
to to Inspector [G], as it seemed outrageous to me that
the offender should be notified that they're getting off
scot-free while the victim is kept in the dark.
Inspector [G] briefed me on what he had found about the
course of the investigation. I was told me that a statement
had been taken from one of the witnesses (as well as myself,
obviously) and the driver had been interviewed. Apparently
the driver claimed I had ``put the brakes on'' and that
this was the cause of the collision; Inspector [G] told me
that the witness's account didn't agree with that and agreed
rather with my own version of events, and Inspector [G] said
that in any case that would be no excuse for him driving
that closely behind me.
Inspector [G] told me that the investigating officer had
submitted a file on the case on the 22nd of January to
the `Criminal Justice Unit', a group of civilian case
file managers in Parkside, with a view to prosecuting
for Careless Driving. He gave me the reference number
####### and the name of the CJU Manager at Parkside,
[firstname surname].
I was told that on the 28th of February the CJU had decided
not to prosecute. This decision was recorded by means of a
code for `Not In the Public Interest'; Inspector [G] told me
that he regarded that as meaning that there was sufficient
evidence to convict. The CJU apparently sent the letter
to the offender at this time, telling him that no further
action was to be taken against him. Inspector [G] was not
able to tell me anything concrete about how the CJU came to
this conclusion.
Inspector [G] told me that it was now too late to prosecute
because of a 6-month limit on such offences.
I asked whose responsibility it would have been to tell
me about the decision not to prosecute and he said that
it would have been the CJU's. He said that normally the
investigating officer wouldn't be told.
Regarding my attempts to get information about the progress
of the case through the Cambridgeshire Constabulary call
centre (the only non-emergency number they advertise),
Inspector [G] told me that the Service Centre (a second-line
call centre) should have put me through to the CJU.
I told Inspector [G] that from what he'd said I had no cause
for complaint against the investigating officer and asked
him to thank them for me. I said that it seemed my real
complaint was with the CJU. Inspector [G] suggested that I
should make a separate complaint against the CJU.
Inspector [G] asked me whether I was happy to agree to
local resolution. I said that if I was happy to agree to
local resolution of any complaint against the investigating
officer, based on what he had told me, but made it clear
that I was not happy to have my complaint against the CJU
about the decision not to prosecute resolved in that way.
This was discussed several times in the telephone call,
with Inspector [G] asking me ``are you happy with this'' me
having to clarify that I was happy with informal resolution
only with respect to action against the investigating
officer based on the information Inspector [G] had provided
me during this call.
After I spoke to Inspector [G] I looked at the
Cambridgeshire Constabulary website to find out where I
should direct my complaint against the CJU. I did not wish
to complain directly to the CJU as I felt the complaint was
too serious for internal resolution within the CJU. The
website suggested the Professional Standards Deaprtment, so
I phoned the Constabulary call centre and asked to be put
through there.
I spoke to a member of the Professional Standards Department
who after a brief description of the situation said that
Inspector [G] ought to be able to deal with my complaint
against the CJU. The staff member I spoke to promised
to either phone me back themselves, or have Inspector [G]
do so.
Instead, I received from Inspector [G] the purported
local resolution letter which you will find attached, and
shortly thereafter another copy with a covering letter
from the Cambridgeshire Constabulary Professional Standards
Department.
COMPLAINTS I MAKE AGAINST THE POLICE
Handling of my complaint was inadequate and confused
I will deal with the procedural problems first.
Firstly, I did not agree to local resolution of my complaint
against the decision not to prosecute.
At the time I agreed to any local resolution at all,
Inspector [G] had told me that that decision was made
soley by the CJU and that I would have to submit a separate
complaint about them. I clearly stated that my agreement
to local resolution applied only to my complaint against the
investigating officer and was based on the facts Inspector
[G] had explained to me --- in particular, Inspector [G]'s
assertion that a lack of evidence was not responsible
for the decision not to prosecute. My attempt to make a
separate complaint was referred back to Inspector [G] and he
has chosen to treat them together, but I have not agreed to
local resolution of my criticisms of the CJU.
Furthermore, as I made very clear during my conversation
with Inspector [G], even my consent to local resolution of
my complaint against the investigating officer was based on
the information he had provided. Specifically relevant from
the present point of view is that Inspector [G] had told
me that the officer had not been involved in the decision
not to prosecute. However, his local resolution report
tells me that the investigating officer recommended against
prosecution. If Inspector [G] had told me that at the time
then I would not have agreed to local resolution at all.
My anger about the lack of prosecution, and my lack of
desire for a low-weight semi-formal `local resolution'
process for dealing with my complaint about that, should
have been very clear to Inspector [G]. I expressed my
unhappiness with the CJU (who we at the time thought
were responsible) very clearly. I do not understand why
Inspector [G] did not phone me again, as promised by the
officer from Professional Standards, to discuss his findings
about the CJU and confirm my lack of consent to local
resolution of that complaint.
My complaint about the lack of prosecution has not been
properly investigated. Inspector [G] originally persisted
in focussing on the matter as a complaint chiefly or solely
against the investigating officer and had to be corrected on
that point. Inspector [G] was unsure as to his jurisdiction
over the CJU. This leads to it operating without proper
oversight.
With the information I now have about the complaints
process it seems to me my complaint ought to have been
handled as one complaint from the outset; if Inspector [G]
felt he didn't have the powers to deal with the CJU after
discovering that the CJU was responsible for the things I
was complaining about, he should have transferred the case
himself to someone with appropriate authority.
The additional investigation into the behaviour of the CJU,
prompted by my phone call to Professional Standards, was not
done properly. The timings of the various acts by the CJU
is not reported in Inspector [G]'s letter. The discussions
of why the CJU felt that prosecution was not in the public
interest are perfunctory and do not address the disagreement
between the description in the `Charging Standards manual'
as quoted to me (of an incident that ought not to be
prosecuted) and the actual events.
The investigation of why I was not kept properly informed
until it was too late to prosecute has been wholly
inadequate. All I have is the assurance that my point has
been ``taken on board''. There is no discussion on who was
responsible for this failing and what measures will be taken
to prevent a recurrence.
The letter I have received from Inspector [G] differs in
significant ways from the information he gave my during our
phone call:
In the letter he cites discrepancies in the witnesses'
evidence as a factor in the decision not to prosecute;
whereas in the phone call he said that the evidence was
sufficient --- and in any case if further corroboration was
needed there were two more witnesses available. That the
CJU's decision not to prosecute was taken rather too late
to get fresh memories from those additional witnesses is an
additional cause for complaint.
The letter lacks the names of the CJU members involved,
which I believe is inappropriate. It fails to mention
the timescales of the actions by the CJU, despite me
specifically asking Inspector [G] who in the CJU did what
when.
The letter says baldly that ``There is no possibility
of [the decision not to prosecute] being overturned as a
consequence of your complaint''. This omits mention of the
reason --- the 6-month time limit. It reads to me like an
attempt to discourage an appeal.
And of course as I have already mentioned, Inspector [G]'s
report says that the investigating officer recommended
against prosecution; however during the phone call Inspector
[G] told me that the decision not to prosecute was entirely
due to the CJU.
In summary, my complaint has been fobbed off and I am wholly
dissatisfied.
Decision not to prosecute was wrong
Based on the information provided by Inspector [G], I remain
extremely unhappy with the peformance of the constabulary
and in particular with the CJU. There were serious failings
by the CJU in this case.
Firstly, the decision by the CJU not to prosecute was wrong,
whether regarded in relation to official CPS guidance, or in
relation to the public interest.
Considering the broader public interest first, there are
several factors which ought to tend towards a decision
to prosecute:
1. I was a vulnerable road user (pedestrian or cyclist)
coming into conflict with a motor vehicle; drivers
should take extra care around people not protected by
being surrounded by vehicles;
2. The offender was aggressive (he sounded his horn and
accelerated aggressively) and that was what caused
the collision;
3. The collision resulted in me being thrown from my
bicycle at speed;
4. A less agile rider would have been more substantially
injured, perhaps seriously;
5. The driver threatened my partner (``shall I run over
you too'') during the subsequent conversations at the
scene;
6. This kind of behaviour contributes to a hostile
environment for walking and cycling --- modes of
transport the police ought to be working to help
encourage;
7. The area in question is a special reduced speed 20mph
zone intended to be attractive and safe for pedestrians
and cyclists.
I was an innocent cyclist thrown off at 15mph in city centre
reduced speed zone due to being run into from behind by
an aggressive driver, with three independent witnesses as
well as my partner. This is quite different to the kind
of minor case of careless driving which might reasonably be
left unprosecuted.
Looking at ``Careless driving and driving without due
consideration --- Section 3 RTA 1988'' subheading ``Due care
- public interest considerations''
(http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.html#20
retrieved on 2007-07-22 at 23:58 BST), there is a clear
guidance that the greater the blameworthiness, the greater
the public interest in prosecution. The factors I list
above, regarding the broader public interest, all tend
towards establishing greater blameworthiness.
There are a number of situations described under the same
subheading where the public interest would not be served
by prosecution:
o A technical lapse from the statutory standard where a
case is likely to attract only a nominal penalty and
will have no deterrent effect on a defendant or other
motorists. --- This does not apply in this case; even
the minimum penalty of a small fine and a 3 penalty
points would have a significant deterrence effect for
a taxi driver. Being punished for aggressive driving
should have a salutary effect on a taxi driver as it
would be likely to endanger their taxi licence.
o What matters is the extent of the error, not the extent
of any damage. --- The driver's error was deliberate
aggression, which is by no means minor. It puts other
road users at risk. The fact that by luck no serious
injury or damage was caused is specifically ruled out
from consideration.
o The public interest will tend to be against a
prosecution for careless driving where the incident
is of a type such as frequently occurs in at parking
places or in traffic queues, involving minimal
carelessness. --- I hope that cyclists being rammed
from behind by aggressive drivers does not happen
frequently in Cambridgeshire!
o A prosecution may not be necessary where the only or
main loser (in terms of personal injury or damage) was
the proposed defendant. --- This is intended to cover
essentially single-vehicle accidents. The main loser
in this case was me, the victim: I was thrown off my
cycle, seriously inconvenienced, slightly hurt, and
badly shaken.
The CPS guidance would seem to indicate that a charge
of Driving without Reasonable Consideration would be
appropriate in this case:
o On the difference between due care and due
consideration: [`Due' consideration] is more
appropriate where the real harm done is aimed at, or
suffered by, a particular person.
o On public the interest factors: You may be more
inclined to prosecute where you have decided that due
consideration is the appropriate charge and ... the
defendant caused harm, annoyance or distress
The Constabulary do not appear to have considered charging
the driver with Inconsiderate Driving. That possibility is
not discussed at all in Inspector [G]'s letter.
Failure to communicate with me, the victim
The CJU abjectly failed to communicate or to manage this
case at all properly. The CJU's failings made it impossible
for me to have their mistake rectified thus leading to
the lack of prosecution; their inadequate and improper
communication led directly to the lack of action by taxi
licensing office.
It is outrageous that the offender (remember, the CJU has
decided, we are told, that the offence was committed) should
be told he will not be prosecuted but the victim is told
nothing.
Thirdly, even if the decision not to prosecute was correct,
there are many actions short of prosecution available to the
police. There is no indication for example that even words
of advice were offered to the offender.
The letter written to the offender was worded in a way that
allowed him to exonerate himself with a third party --- in
this case, the Taxi Licensing office. The letter should
have mentioned that the police felt that offence had been
committed but that it was felt prosecution was not in the
public interest.
Recommendations of NFA by investigating officer and superior
If the investigating officer did recommend against
prosecution then that decision was also wrong for the
reasons I have given above. Likeise, if the investigating
officer's superior recommended against prosecution then they
too were wrong for the same reasons.
Official CPS guidance misleadingly paraphrased
Considering the section from the `Charging Standards manual'
quoted by Inspector [G] in support of the decision not
to prosecute:
I telephoned the Constabulary's enquiry desk to ask for a
copy of the `Charging Standards manual'. My call was put
through to the `police service centre' and I was told that
the publication was a book published by Oxford University
Press. I asked for details such as the specific URL or
author and title but the agent I spoke to would only tell
me that the URL was www.oup.co.uk and said ``just type in
Charging Standards''.
The book referred to appears to be ISBN-13 978-0-19-928513-6
Charging Standards published by the CPS and OUP. This book
contains substantially the same material as the guidance as
published by the CPS on their website as I quote above.
The wording quoted by Inspector [G] in his letter seems
indeed to have been extracted from this guidance. However,
if so it has been paraphrased and the result has a different
meaning to the original, which can be found on page 151 of
the 2005 edition of the book.
The official CPS guidance, whether obtained from the
paper book or from the CPS website, should not have been
paraphrased. If it was edited by Inspector [G] or the CJU
after I made my complaint, that would be wholly improper ---
it would amount to massaging the guidance so as to support
the decision already taken and mislead me as complainant.
Even taken on its own terms, the guidance as actually quoted
by Inspector [G] does not suggest dropping this case: the
incident didn't involve minimal carelessness but aggressive
recklessness or even deliberate collision; it was not caused
by the presence of a parking place, roundabout, junction or
queue --- we were proceeding normally along the road.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Treatment of bad driving against vulnerable road users
Cases like this one are the tip of an iceberg of
largely-unreported harassment of cyclists by a small but
highly visible minority of aggressive and intimidating
drivers. The Constabulary should treat them as crimes
against the person, not as `mere' motoring offences. If
aggression appears to have occured but the relevant intent
cannot be proved and only a prosecution for a driving
offence will be successful, the latter should be vigorously
pursued.
The absurd position now is that if serious offences such
as this one are committed by taxi drivers in Cambridge, the
best response by the victim is not even to consider trying
to secure a prosecution. The Taxi Licensing office have
been helpful and diligent throughout and left me in no doubt
that this matter would have been taken seriously by them.
Pedestrians and cyclists deserve the fullest protection
of the law: when a driver of a motor vehicle commits a
`minor bad driving offence' against them, such as barging
through, tailgating, or cutting up, the vulnerable road user
justifiably fears for life and limb. In cases of deliberate
aggression these incidents should be treated as the serious
assaults that they are.
My requests for action by the IPCC
Please would you investigate and take whatever steps
necessary to ensure that in
Cambridgeshire:
o Bad driving offences, and particularly crimes
of aggression, by motorists against cyclists and
pedestrians are taken seriously and always prosecuted
where feasible;
o The Constabulary, and specifically CJUs, promptly
communicate their decisions to victims;
o The Constabulary, and specifically CJUs, make their
decisions on prosecution promptly enough to review them
and to gather further evidence if necessary;
o Letters of No Further Action sent to the accused
make it clear that the police believe the offence was
committed if this is the case;
o The Constabulary uses only current and accurate CPS
guidance;
o CPS guidance is not misquoted or misrepresented by
the Constabulary;
o CPS guidance is followed by the Constabulary;
o The handling of complaints against CJUs (and other
civilian branches of the Constabulary) is improved;
o Specifically, that officers investigating complaints
are empowered (and know that they are empowered) to
deal with anyone employed by the Constabulary;
o Where investigating a complaint includes establishing
who was responsible, the complaint is handled from the
outset in a joined-up way with a single investigating
officer;
o Where a complainant states that they are happy for
local resolution of only part of their complaint, or
only as regards certain staff, this is treated as a
complete lack of consent to local resolution;
o The Constabulary's arrangements for dealing with public
enquries make it possible for a victim of a crime to
find out what's happening.
Thanks for your assistance.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully
Dr Ian Jackson
Enclosed:
Completed IPCC appeal form
Plus copies of:
My narrative of the collision as I published it online (11th
December 2006)
Initial complaint by me against Cambridge Constabulary (13th
May 2007)
Covering letter from Superintendent Hodgson (10th July 2007)
Purported local resolution report from Inspector [G]
(undated)
-8<-
i p c c
Our Reference No. #####
independent
police complaints
commission
Dr Ian Jackson
[etc] Indepdendent House
Whitwick Business Park
Stenson Road
Coalville, Leicestershire
LE67 4JP
31 August 2007
Tel: [etc]
Dear Dr Jackson
This letter is about your appeal against Cambridgeshire Constabulary,
which we received on 6 August 2007.
After considering all the information available, I have now made a
decision about the appeal. I have upheld your appeal on the grounds
that the Local Resolution process was not followec correctly and
because your subsequent complaint against the Criminal Justice Unit
was not recorded or a determination made as to how the complaint would
be investigated. The reasons for this decision are detailed further
in the attached report.
I have made a number of directions to the Professional Standards
Department in respect of your complaints. You should expect an
officer to contact you regarding the actions that I have asked them to
take.
If you have any questions or need more information about this
decision, please contact me. However, this decision is final.
Yours sincerely
[signature]
[name]
Casework Manager
*Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)*
Encl. Statement of Findings
IPCC Contact:
[same name as before]
Casework Manager
[phone number]
E-mail: [firstname.lastname]@btinternet.com
-8<-
*Appeal against local resolution: Statement of findings*
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *DETAILS OF APPEAL* |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| IPCC Reference: 2007/#### |
| Name of complainant: Dr Ian Jackson |
| Name of solicitor/agent: Not applicable |
| Name of force: Cambridgeshire Police |
| Date of complaint: 13 May 2007 |
| Date of force decision: 10 July 2007 |
| Date appeal received: 6 August 2006 |
| Casework Manager: [same name as on covering letter] |
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL* |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
! 1. The complaint: |
| |
| The complainant was involved in a traffic collision on 1 December |
| 2006. His complaint emanates from the way in which the incident was |
| investigated. The following complaints were made: |
| |
| o The incident was not investigated with due diligence. |
| |
| o He was not kept sufficiently informed of the progress of the |
| enquiry. |
| |
| The complainant made a further complaint against the Criminal |
| Justice Unit (CJU) and their decision not to prosecute the offender |
| involved in a traffic collision. However this complaint was not |
| recorded by the force. |
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| 2. The appeal: |
| |
| o The complainant states the investigating officer has purported |
| to deal with the complaint against CJU by local resolution |
| without his consent. |
| |
| o He states he was very clear during his conversation with |
| Inspector [G] about his consent to local resolution in that |
| he was happy for his complaint against PC [H] to be dealt |
| with by local resolution but not his complaint against the CJU |
| (Criminal Justice Unit) as he felt that complaint was too |
| serious. |
| |
| o He was advised by Inspector [G] to make a separate complaint to |
| the CJU because the Inspector said he did not have jurisdiction |
| over the CJU. However when a separate complaint was made it |
| was handed back to Inspector [G] to deal with the two |
| complaints by way of local resolution. The complainant states |
| Insp. [G] was unsure of his jurisdiction over the CJU. |
| |
| o The complainant states that when someone states that they are |
| only happy for part of their complain to be locally resolved |
| this should not be treated as consent for all complaints to be |
| dealt with that way. |
| |
| The complainant submitted an eleven page report detailing his |
| grounds of appeal, much of which is related to the complaint itself |
| and the actions of the Criminal Justice Unit. Since the appeal |
| against local resolution only applies to whether the local |
| resolution process has been followed correctly and does not allow a |
| complainant to appeal against the outcome of their complaints, I |
| have extracted and considered the relevant parts that relate to the |
| process. |
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *APPEAL FINDINGS* |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| 1. Was the complaint suitable for local resolution? |
| |
| The complaints were suitable for local resolution however this is |
| irrelevant if the complainant does not give consent to local |
| resolution and by that I mean, an action plan is agreed and the |
| complainant signs the local resolution form once the local |
| resolution process has been explained to them and they have been |
| advised what is going to happen regarding their complaint. This |
| should happen prior to the action plans being completed. A |
| complainant must sign the local resolution form and action plan at |
| the outset to confirm they agree and are happy with the actions to |
| be carried out by the investigating officer and the process by which |
| their complaint is being handled. |
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| 2. Was there evidence to show that the complainant was sufficiently |
| informed ? |
| |
| Having reviewed the local resolution notes provided by |
| Cambridgeshire Police, it is evident that the local resolution |
| process was not followed correctly. The process appears to have |
| been applied in completely the wrong way. |
| |
| DI [L] was overseeing this complaint and either liased with the |
| complainant directly or tasked Inspector [G]. He has recorded |
| comprehensive notes in relation to this complaint and on 10 June has |
| documented that he spoke to the complainant in respect of his |
| complaint against PC [H]. He records that the complainant was happy |
| with his explanation regarding the investigation conducted by PC [H] |
| and that the complaint would now be locally resolved. |
| |
| The decision how this complaint was going to be investigated should |
| have been made prior to an investigation taking place. If the |
| complaint was going to be dealt with by local resolution, the |
| process should have been explained to the complainant, the action |
| plan agreed, and the local resolution form signed giving consent; |
| however this does not appear to have happened. Following the |
| complaint being made the officer was spoken to on 31 May 2007 and an |
| explanation regarding the allegation was given to the complainant by |
| phone on 10 June 2007. The resolution notes show that the |
| complainant agreed to local resolution verbally at that point. The |
| action plan is only documented on 26 June 2007, after local |
| resolution was agreed and the local resolution form was sent out for |
| signature on 10 July 2007, at the conclusion of the complaint. |
| |
| Whilst I appreciate DI [L] may have only realised that the complaint |
| was suitable for local resolution after doing some initial |
| investigative work, that rationale is not recorded anywhere, |
| therefore I am only speculating in this regard. There is a further |
| note on the file dated 25 June stating that the complainant had not |
| signed the LR form yet and this should be addressed at the earliest |
| opportunity. This note suggests there was an awareness that this |
| needed to be done first or as soon as possible. - The complainant |
| did not sign the form and was not happy to since he did not agree to |
| local resolution for his complaint against the CJU. |
| |
| DI [L] also records on 10 June 2006 that the complainant will pursue |
| his grievance about the decision not to prosecute directly with the |
| Southern CJU. He further records communication between PSD [ie, the |
| Professional Standards Department -iwj] and the complainant; which |
| states that the complainant has asked PSD how he pursues his |
| complaint against the CJU. Following communication with the |
| Professional Standards Department I am able to clarify that the |
| Criminal Justice Unit falls under the jurisdiction of the Chief |
| Officer. Therefore the complaint against the CJU should have been |
| recorded and a decision made as to whether to record it as a |
| complaint or a direction and control matter. This was not done. |
| |
| DI [L] followed up the complaint against the CJU, even though at |
| that stage it had not been recorded and no decision had been made as |
| to the process by which it would be investigated. He spoke with the |
| Head of the CJU and she provided a written response in relation to |
| the decision not to summons the offender so this could be passed |
| onto the complainant as an explanation that may help resolve his |
| complaint. |
| |
| The complainant, in his grounds of appeal, clearly states the [sic] |
| he did not agree for his complaint against the CJU to be dealt with |
| by Local resolution and it is evident from the file that the |
| complaint was not recorded and no determination was made in relation |
| to how this complain [sic] would be investigated. |
| |
| *I recommend upholding this appeal for the following reasons:* |
| |
| o Consent was not obtained from the complainant to deal with the |
| complaint against PC [H] by way of local resolution until after |
| the actions, which later became the action plan, had been |
| carried out. |
| |
| o The complainant shoudl have been provided with the local |
| resolution form showing the action plan to be carried out and |
| the Local Resolution process explained to him at the outset. - |
| It may have been appropriate to meet with the complainant to |
| document his complaint and agree an action plan as apposed |
| [sic] to all communication being by telephone. |
| |
| o The complaint against the CJU was not recorded and no decision |
| was made as to how this complaint or direction and control |
| matter would be investigated/resolved. Although it appears |
| Inspector [G] was left to resolve the matter and seemed unsure |
| of his jurisdiction over the CJU, he clearly made best |
| endeavours to resolve the matter and therefore his involvement |
| was a positive one. |
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| 3. Was the action plan for the local resolution suitable and |
| complete? |
| |
| The action plan was suitable and sufficient but was not agreed and |
| was completed prior to consent to local resolution having been |
| obtained, which is clearly not appropriate and is not the correct |
| process to follow. |
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| 4. Was the outcome of the local resolution adequately communicated? |
| |
| In reolation to the complaint against PC [H] and although the local |
| resolution process has not been followed correctly, the action plan |
| was carried out and the letter explaining this was sent to the |
| complainant on 10 July 2007. The letter also provides and |
| explanation regarding the complaint against the CJU in an attempt to |
| resolve the complaint, however at that stage no determination had |
| been as to [sic] whether the complaint was being dealt with by Local |
| Resolution (with consent) or by local/proportionate investigation |
| and as stated previously neither had it been recorded. |
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| 5. Are there any points raised by the complainant outside what the |
| IPCC can consider? |
| |
| The IPCC can onoy consider points raised in an appeal against |
| investigation which fall under the three questions above. The local |
| resolution appeal process only allows a complainant to appeal |
| against the process and not against the outcome. Therefore I have |
| only considered the relevant points in the grounds of appeal. |
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *ACTIONS REQUIRED OF THE FORCE/AUTHORITY* |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| Cambridgeshire Constabulary should record the complaint against the |
| Criminal Justice Unit appropriatley, given that the CJU does fall |
| under the jurisdiction of the Chief Officer and then make a |
| determination as to how this complaint will be dealt with. The |
| force will also need to consider whether this matter is to be |
| recorded as a complaint or direction and control matter. It may be |
| that the explanation already provided to the complainant is |
| sufficient to resolve the matter however this will need to be |
| established. |
| |
| An investigating officer should meet with the complainant and obtain |
| a signed copy of the local resolution form in relation to the |
| complaint against PC [H], since this has never been received, |
| although it appears consent was given verbally and this is |
| documented in this file. |
| |
| Once the complaint against the CJU has been recorded and a |
| determination made, the complaint should be discussed and resolved |
| with the complainant. |
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mike Clark
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> I thought I'd bring the newsgroup up to date on this saga; I didn't
> post about some of the more recent events here for tactical reasons
> which don't apply any more.
>
Ian,
Have you copied any of this to your MP David Howarth? How about to the
Home Office?
Ian Jackson
Mike Clark <mr...@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In message <Qxe*WQ...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> I thought I'd bring the newsgroup up to date on this saga; I didn't
>> post about some of the more recent events here for tactical reasons
>> which don't apply any more.
>
No, I haven't. Do you think I should ? I'm not sure I want to
bombard him with dozens of pages of correspondence. Perhaps I should
send him a summary and ask him if he's interested.
What do you think I ought to be asking him to do ?
> How about to the Home Office?
What do you think they might do that would be useful ?
Mike Clark
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <0456191d4f....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
> Mike Clark <mr...@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >In message <Qxe*WQ...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> >Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >> I thought I'd bring the newsgroup up to date on this saga; I didn't
> >> post about some of the more recent events here for tactical reasons
> >> which don't apply any more.
> >
> >Have you copied any of this to your MP David Howarth?
>
> No, I haven't. Do you think I should ? I'm not sure I want to
> bombard him with dozens of pages of correspondence. Perhaps I should
> send him a summary and ask him if he's interested.
>
> What do you think I ought to be asking him to do ?
>
> > How about to the Home Office?
>
> What do you think they might do that would be useful ?
>
Well it seems to me there are two issues here. One is the
unsatisfactory resolution of your own case and the circular nature of
the accountability. It may be that there is only a limited scope for
resolution of your own case.
However a second issue is whether the action taken on your case is
indicative of how the local Police and CPS disregard the safety of
cyclists? That would seem to be something to raise in a more general way
with your MP and the Home Office. I'd be inclined to go for this more
generalised complaint/publicity. Do they think it OK to tolerate
cyclists being run into deliberately by drivers?
Nick Maclaren
In article <a9de261d4f....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
Mike Clark <mr...@nospam.cam.ac.uk> writes:
|>
|> However a second issue is whether the action taken on your case is
|> indicative of how the local Police and CPS disregard the safety of
|> cyclists? That would seem to be something to raise in a more general way
|> with your MP and the Home Office. I'd be inclined to go for this more
|> generalised complaint/publicity. Do they think it OK to tolerate
|> cyclists being run into deliberately by drivers?
In my personal experience, that is the case.
I have some suspicion that there may be more to it than Cambridgeshire
Police being institutionally anti-cyclist. Taking assaults against
cyclists seriously would cost money, and neither their funding authority
nor their supervisory authority are known for being pro-cyclist.
I have no evidence of any form of conspiracy, not even the tacit form
that English lacks a word for, despite England being a hotbed of the
practice. But there is assuredly no pressure on them to reform their
policy of tacit support for this form of assault with a deadly weapon.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Ian Jackson
Mike Clark <mr...@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Well it seems to me there are two issues here. One is the
>unsatisfactory resolution of your own case and the circular nature of
>the accountability. It may be that there is only a limited scope for
>resolution of your own case.
Yes. I don't think this particular case is really the main axe I have
to grind. Its interest is mainly as an example.
>However a second issue is whether the action taken on your case is
>indicative of how the local Police and CPS disregard the safety of
>cyclists? That would seem to be something to raise in a more general way
>with your MP and the Home Office. I'd be inclined to go for this more
>generalised complaint/publicity. Do they think it OK to tolerate
>cyclists being run into deliberately by drivers?
Yes.
I'm also unimpressed by the whole IPCC process, as I mentioned. But
it may be better to only ask David Howarth about one thing at a time,
even if this case raises quite a number of questions.
Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:>No, I haven't. [...]
In fact looking at my email records it turns out that I did write to
David Howarth in May. I got an ack from a "casework assistant" but
nothing substantive.
I've emailed again.
Al Grant
> Well it seems to me there are two issues here. One is the
> unsatisfactory resolution of your own case and the circular nature of
>
> However a second issue is whether the action taken on your case is
> indicative of how the local Police and CPS disregard the safety of
> cyclists?
Actually I think the issue Ian is most likely to be able
to pursue is the prejudicing of action by the local taxi
licensing authority, who AFAICT would have been
prepared to take action if the police had not sat on
the case until after the deadline for taking action.
If the police aren't going to pursue a taxi complaint
the licensing authority ought to, and the fact that they
weren't able to in this case seems to be down to
incompetence by paper-shufflers in the police.
I don't think you are going to get very far challenging
the police's (or CJU's or CPS's) priorities or any
anti-cyclist bias - or the report's excuse that no injury
occurred when one may well have occurred if an
average cyclist had been involved. The police will
just say that they have limited resources and more
important crimes to deal with.
Espen Koht
Al Grant <alg...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Actually I think the issue Ian is most likely to be able
> to pursue is the prejudicing of action by the local taxi
> licensing authority, who AFAICT would have been
> prepared to take action if the police had not sat on
> the case until after the deadline for taking action.
> If the police aren't going to pursue a taxi complaint
> the licensing authority ought to, and the fact that they
> weren't able to in this case seems to be down to
> incompetence by paper-shufflers in the police.
This seems to me to be a critical point, although I'm not sure where in
this case it was demonstrated that the licensing authority was unable to
take action as opposed to merely unwilling to do so.
Nick Maclaren
In article <ehk20-EFCA6F....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk>,
If the police actively contact the licensing authority to say that there
was no offence - as distinct from merely saying that they intend to take
no action when asked - the taxi driver would have no problem suing the
licensing authority, and would probably win.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Espen Koht
nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
> |> This seems to me to be a critical point, although I'm not sure where in
> |> this case it was demonstrated that the licensing authority was unable to
> |> take action as opposed to merely unwilling to do so.
>
> If the police actively contact the licensing authority to say that there
> was no offence - as distinct from merely saying that they intend to take
> no action when asked - the taxi driver would have no problem suing the
> licensing authority, and would probably win.
In a hypothetical scenario perhaps, but as far as I can ascertain from
the narrative of this case no such claim or contact has been made. The
police declined to prosecute because 'it was not in the public interest'
which appears in practice to be an admission that there is sufficient
evidence that an offence took place but they are still not going to
prosecute. It was the taxi driver who contacted the licensing office,
and I would be surprised if the letter he received said anything more
than substantial than 'we are not going to prosecute'.
Ian Jackson
Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>This seems to me to be a critical point, although I'm not sure where in
>this case it was demonstrated that the licensing authority was unable to
>take action as opposed to merely unwilling to do so.
The police stalled the situation until it was too late for the
licensing office to make their own investigation.
They then gave the offender a letter saying there would be no
prosecution (which thus appeared to exonerate them) and the taxi
licensing office (I think reasonably) told the offender that in that
case the licensing office wouldn't do anything either.
It was only after I made my complaint against the police that I
discovered that the police thought an offence had been committed but
just didn't want to prosecute. I can quite see why the licensing
office din't want to take any more action about this incident at that
stage, particularly after having told the driver he was off the hook.
MJ Ray
>
I think you should. Elsewhere in England, less fortunate cyclists are
being put into hospital as a result of increasingly bad driving and
police non-enforcement. This one happened on my usual road to the train
station, for example:
http://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/content/twm/news/story.aspx?brand=Westonmercury&category=news&tBrand=westonmercury&tCategory=znews&itemid=WeED04%20Sep%202007%2016%3A41%3A44%3A597
and I've been clipped on that same road before (which is partly why I'm
interested in the bikecam setup).
Getting any MP interested would be a big step forwards and I think you
may have more luck with David Howarth than I've had with John Penrose.
[...]
> > How about to the Home Office?
>
> What do you think they might do that would be useful ?
Instruct the police to take offences against cyclists more seriously in
a fit of 'joined-up government'. Improbable but possible.
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Espen H. Koht
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <ehk20-EFCA6F....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk>,
> Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >This seems to me to be a critical point, although I'm not sure where in
> >this case it was demonstrated that the licensing authority was unable to
> >take action as opposed to merely unwilling to do so.
>
> The police stalled the situation until it was too late for the
> licensing office to make their own investigation.
Why would it be too late for the licensing office to investigate?
> They then gave the offender a letter saying there would be no
> prosecution (which thus appeared to exonerate them) and the taxi
> licensing office (I think reasonably) told the offender that in that
> case the licensing office wouldn't do anything either.
I don't see how that is reasonable. Isn't the purpose of the licensing
office is to 'police' whether the licensee is upholding the terms of the
license? That may or may not have anything to do with what the police
think of the matter.
Ian Jackson
Because 6 months later everyone who would need to be interviewed would
have forgotten the details (or be alleged by the taxi driver to have
forgotten).
>In article <bgc*K3...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> The police stalled the situation until it was too late for the
>> licensing office to make their own investigation.
>> They then gave the offender a letter saying there would be no
>> prosecution (which thus appeared to exonerate them) and the taxi
>> licensing office (I think reasonably) told the offender that in that
>> case the licensing office wouldn't do anything either.
>
>I don't see how that is reasonable. Isn't the purpose of the licensing
>office is to 'police' whether the licensee is upholding the terms of the
>license? That may or may not have anything to do with what the police
>think of the matter.
I think that when the driver brought in the NFA letter from the
police, the licensing office probably felt that that meant that the
police thought my allegations against the driver were without merit -
specifically, that the collision had somehow been my fault.
Someone who expects that the police will do their job would expect
that an NFA letter would mean the police had interviewed the witnesses
and found that the matter was unclear enough, or the witnesses'
statements enough in the driver's favour, that they didn't even want
to offer the driver "Words of Advice" as the phrase goes.
The licensing office don't have the detailed experience of the
police's attitude that some cyclists unfortunately end up having.
Certainly next time I won't bother with the police. Ramming a cyclist
like this might well lose a taxi driver their licence even on a first
offence, whereas a prosecution is likely to result in little more than
3 or 6 points on the licence and a small fine.
And I hope that by the time I'm through with this complaint I'll have
either clear evidence to show the taxi licensing office that they
ought not take an NFA letter as exoneration, or (better) an agreement
from the police to send less abuseable letters.
Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Various names etc. redacted:
> Enclosed:
...
> Appeal submission (as far as is practical)
APPEAL SUBMISSION (AS FAR AS PRACTICAL)
IPCC case reference ******* - 2nd appeal
These are the grounds for my appeal insofar as I am able to
submit them (see my attached covering letter).
The findings of the police investigation are wrong, and
the police have failed to suggest that they will take any
adequate action, let alone tell me how it goes.
ERRORS REGARDING THE EVENTS OF THE ACTUAL CRASH
The investigation report has misrepresented the statements
of the witnesses including myself and the offending
driver, and the investigation report erroneously upheld the
erroneous factual conclusions of the investigating officers
as described in that report:
In the investigation report, it is alleged several times
that I admitted in my statement jumping from my cycle, or
that I admitted stopping in front of the taxi. This is
not at all true. I did not jump from my cycle and I did
not stop. I was struck, then as a result I was thrown from
my cycle. I was just lucky that I managed to land on my
feet. I did not say in my statement that I stopped, or
that I jumped from my cycle, or that I stood astride it.
Nevertheless the report says, and the submissions by various
staff show that they believed, that I had said that I had
stopped or dismounted.
The conclusion that I stopped deliberately appears to have
been reached because the various officers are unable to
believe that after being involved in a collision and knocked
off my cycle, I might manage to land on my feet and suffer
only a trivial pulled muscle. However, I am fit and agile
and a very experienced rider, and such a fortuitous landing
is not at all implausible. (Of course the driver alleges
that I stopped in front of him, but this is not particularly
credible as he would obviously claim that to try to cast
some of the blame on me.) I made it very clear to PC H that
I had been knocked off and landed on my feet.
The words I used to PC H, and which thus appear in my
statement `the next thing I knew', have been transformed
into `next thing he could recall'. This is not the same
thing at all. The former clearly indicates a sudden
stressful and violent event (which often involves a short
period where no memories are laid down); the latter suggests
a lapse of recall or subsequent confusion or perhaps even
doubt.
In the investigation report Mr Anderson says that there was
an `inconsistency' in the statements made by myself and by
the witness, D J. However this problem is easily resolved
by accepting my version of events, that I was knocked off
and landed on my feet:
Mr J reports that he saw me fall of my bike, and then that
he saw me standing in the road. I report that one moment
I was riding along and the next moment I have crashed with
my bike lying on the ground and me standing by it. (Some
of the investigators appear to have concluded that at this
point I am standing astride the bike. It is of course
not possible to stand astride a bicycle that is lying on
the ground.) These are both consistent with my version
of events, and not consistent with the driver's version of
events which is that I stopped first and deliberately.
ERRORS REGARDING PROPER USE OF THE ROAD BY CYCLISTS
Everyone involved in the investigation appears to have
concluded that I was partly at fault due to my road
position, which was supposedly inappropriate.
This relies critically on the view (most clearly expressed
by PS W) that on Short Street and Emmanuel Street there is
room for a car to overtake a bike if `the cycles were ridden
single file and close to the kerb line'.
At the point where the collision took place, the carriageway
(on the side we were using, measured to the edge of the
central traffic island) is 3.6m wide. According to the
Highway Code (rule 163, and rules 211-215) a driver should
give a cyclist they are overtaking as much room as they
would a small car.
According to Cyclecraft, the official manual for cycling
published by HMSO, a cyclist adopting a position intended to
allow traffic to overtake should cycle about 1m to the left
of the passing traffic and no less than 0.5m from the edge
of the road. With my narrow handlebars I'm about 0.5m wide,
so I do indeed need the 2.0m which is about the size of a
small car.
Obviously fitting me and the taxi into 3.6m, while perhaps
physically possible, gives nowhere near these recommended
amounts of space. No taxi driver would attempt to overtake
a small car when both were constrained to a 3.6m-wide lane.
For me to pull left, indicating by my position to a motorist
behind that they should overtake, would be hazardous.
Note that the delay to the driver from waiting patiently
behind would have been minimal. The speed limit was 20mph
and I was travelling at 15mph. If I had positioned myself
well to the left, allowed him to squeeze past, and then
remained at the very left and used the very narrow cycle
lane, I would probably have got ahead of the driver at the
bollards which were only a few tens of metres ahead.
In any case, even if one were to wrongly consider that my
road position was inconsiderate in that it prevented the
taxi driver from overtaking, that's no excuse at all for
driving aggressively close so as to result in a collision.
OTHER BAD BEHAVIOUR BY OFFENDER IGNORED
I made clear allegations he was intending to intimidate me.
No consideration has been given this which amounts to an
allegation of assault by the driver. This should have been
a key factor in the decisionmaking process.
Mr J alleged that the driver was travelling far too fast,
at 30-35mph. The speed limit on that road is 20mph. This
allegation of very excessive speed by an independent witness
was not properly considered.
These credible allegations have been entirely disregarded
by the original investigators and in the consideration of
my complaint. They should have been taken into account when
considering whether to prosecute for the one offence which
for which clearly evidence was available and a conviction
could have been obtained.
Under these circumstances a conclusion that `both were
at fault' and that therefore the driver should not be
prosecuted is to excuse the driver's dangerous driving on
the grounds of my alleged discourtesy.
BIAS
The investigation report reveals a bias (perhaps
anti-cyclist or pro-driver) in its authors. Much of
the `Background' section is taken very closely from
the offender's statement. In general, the original
investigators and the reports' authors are much more
willing to accept the word of the driver, even though the
independent witness's account, in the words of Inspector G,
`tended to agree with my version of events'.
The Police look relatively favourably on serious
misbehaviours by the driver (driving too close behind
in a way that led to a crash), compared to much less
serious alleged misbehaviours by me (allegedly cycling
inconsiderately by being in the middle of the road and
delaying the driver).
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
It is probably not worthwhile to dig further into the failed
attempt at local resolution. However I would like to put
on record once more that I do not accept the version of
those events presented in the investigation report. In
particular, the investigation report says that I agreed to
various things, but I did not. My previous appeal discussed
the the failed local resolution attempt in detail and should
be referred to if felt necessary.
Having said that, one significant aspect remains open:
The allegation that Inspector G misquoted CPS guidance to
me in his local resolution report has not been dealt with
at all. This is clearly set out starting on page 9 of
my original appeal and I made sure to ask for this to be
considered in this renewed complaint investigation.
MISCELLANEOUS
Inspector G's letter said that my point about outcomes
not being communicated to complaintants had been `taken
on board'. If this were true when it was written, we
would expect it to have been fixed by the time I wrote to
A W in October 2007. However there seems to have been no
movement at all. Under the circumstances the comment that
my complaint, which was upheld by the investigation, has
been `taken on board', was misleading. I require a clear,
timetabled plan for the Police to remedy this systematic
failing.
It is stated in the investigation report that Mr J concluded
that the crash had occurred because we were cycling two
abreast. This seems a startling conclusion and is not
justified at all in the report. How would cycling two
abreast lead to a crash ? I conclude that this assertion
doesn't appear in this form in Mr J's statement, or that
he was talked into this conclusion perhaps when being
interviewed.
The report says that the driver sounded his horn with the
`intention of requiring' me to allow him to pass. This is,
of course, not a proper use of the horn. The horn should
be used to alert other road users to one's presence. If
it is used to `require' something then it is probably being
used inconsiderately - perhaps as part of the commission
of the offence of inconsiderate driving. This has not been
properly considered.
The Background section of the investigation report says that
the crash was not reported to the police at the time, but it
was, as indeed PS W says in his submission.
Dr Ian W Jackson, 26th February 2006
Ian Jackson
Cambridge
CB4 3PA
Independent Police Complaints Commission 26th February 2008
(Central and Eastern England)
Independent House
Whitwick Business Park
Stenson Road
Coalville
LE67 4JP
APPEAL --- FREEDOM OF INFORMATION --- TIME LIMITS etc.
Your reference: ****
Dear Sir or Madam
SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
o Appeal: Futher to your letter dated the 21st of
February, and our telephone conversations on the 22nd
and 23rd, I am writing to submit such grounds for my
appeal as I am able at the present time.
o Time limit: I request that you reconsider your decision
not to allow me time to obtain the documents I need to
make a proper appeal submission.
o Expert Report: I request that you reconsider your
decision not to allow me time to obtain an expert
report, and your expressed intention not to consider it
should I obtain and submit it.
o FOI: You have in your posession certain documents which
I am hereby requesting under the Freedom of Information
Act.
o Judicial Review: I have been advised that some of
your decisions so far in this case are sufficiently
unreasonable that they could be overturned in a
Judicial Review.
This summary is not intended to be exhaustive.
OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS
Firstly, I should confirm the salient points of our
discussions during our telephone conversations on the 21st
and 22nd of February.
Following my letter of the 7th of February, I had not
received anything but a standard acknowledgement dated the
11th of February. I therefore telephoned you on the 21st
to chase things up. I was told by M C that M O was the
relevant case officer, but that she had just left the office
and would telephone me early the next morning. On the 22nd
I called again to ask about this, and was told that Ms O
was ill. I spoke to P S instead, who I was told was
her manager.
During my discussion with Mr S, he read out to me the
letter dated the 21st of February, which I hadn't seen as it
arrived after I left for work.
I corrected the erroneous assumption in Ms O's letter that I
would have had a response from the Police to by FOI request
by then. But this did not seem to change anything in Mr S's
mind. He told me that the IPCC didn't feel it necessary for
me to make detailed submissions regarding the problems I saw
with the investigation. He said that the IPCC would review
the police investigation based on the papers he had already
received from the Constabulary and it was clear that he felt
that any detailed submission from me would be unnecessary
or irrelevant.
I also mentioned the question of the expert's report. Mr
S told me that the IPCC would not be able to consider
it as it wasn't able to take new evidence. The IPCC's
role, according to Mr S, was just to review the Police's
investigation of my complaint and it was not able to
consider evidence which did not form part of the Police's
investigation. I explained that the report was necessary to
clearly contradict a critical misapprehension by the Police,
a misapprehension which the Police with their specialist
knowledge should not have made, but this did not sway Mr S.
Mr S agreed to discuss the matter with his colleagues and
to reconfirm the deadline I should be working to, and to
telephone me back that day or the following Monday, the
25th. I pointed out that telling me on the 25th that I
would have to submit my full appeal by the 28th would, as
I have a day job, give me two evenings to work on it. He
seemed to appreciate the difficulty.
Mr S asked me to inform him if I received a response to my
FOI request to the Police.
Later that day I received a refusal of my FOI request from
the Police, by email. As promised I telephoned P S to
let him know. I told Mr S that I intended to appeal the FOI
refusal to the Information Commissioner.
Mr S told me that he couldn't put my IPCC appeal on hold
while my FOI appeal took place. He insisted that the IPCC
had to determine my appeal within 28 days. I pointed out
to no avail that the original events leading to my complaint
occurred 15 months ago in December 2006, so it could hardly
be considered urgent. However, Mr S was unmoved. He told
me that the IPCC were legally constrained, and that they
were unable rather than unwilling to grant me a suitable
extensioon.
Mr S said to me that if I wanted to submit additional
details about the grounds for my appeal I should do so by
the deadline stated in the letter, ie the 28th of February.
TIME LIMITS
It is in my view unreasonable and unlawful of the IPCC to
refuse to properly consider my request for an extension,
and it is unreasonable to refuse to grant it. It was also
unreasonable of the IPCC to lead me to believe that an
extension would be forthcoming and then to tell me that no
extension would be allowed only two clear working days from
the latest posting date for my appeal submission.
As you will see from my detailed appeal submission, which is
attached, I have been forced to make a number of essentially
speculative assertions about the misconduct of the police
investigation into my complaint. It is unreasonable and
unjust that I am unable to review the materials which are
critical to making the case for my complaint --- materials
which the Police have had full sight of.
M O informed me in her letter of the 21st of February that
she had already started her `review' into my complaint. It
was unreasonable to do so when I had clearly stated that
my appeal submission was merely a skeleton, as you had
yourselves asked for.
The IPCC should now consider whether Ms O may have been
prejudiced by the absence of any substantive grounds from
me at the time she started her investigation. Someone other
than Ms O should decide what action to take to avoid such
prejudice, or the appearance of it, which might include
transferring the investigation to another member of staff
with clear instructions not to proceed until the other
matters affecting my ability to properly appeal have been
resolved.
EXPERT REPORT
It is also unreasonable and unlawful of the IPCC to refuse
to entertain the notion of an expert report. As I explained
to Mr S, the most critical part of my appeal is that
the Police came to the wrong conclusion about whether to
prosecute in large part because they made mistakes about how
a safe and competent cyclist should use the road.
I would like to commission a report from the author of
Cyclecraft (the UK official manual for cycling, published
by HMSO), Dr John Franklin. Dr Franklin has warned me
that his report would be independent and might not be what
I would want to hear, but I am confident that it would
demonstrate that the way I had been riding was entirely
correct and proper and that therefore the police could not
have reasonably concluded that I was in part to blame for
the crash due to my road position.
Without the benefit of expert advice I believe that
the IPCC, as laymen with perhaps no substantial cycling
training, risk making the same errors as the Police.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
I hereby request that the IPCC supply with me copies of all
materials supplied by the Police to the IPCC in connection
with this appeal, or in connection with my successful
predecessor appeal against purported local resolution.
Specifically, I request that the IPCC supply me with the
information I requested from the Police in my letter to
them of the 29th of January 2008 (another copy of which is
attached, although you should have one already).
It was unreasonable that you declined to help me get
copies of these documents from the Police. Assisting
an unrepresented appellant in such a way is one of your
functions, and not at all outside your remit. You should
remedy your error by promptly providing me with the
documents yourselves.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Your behaviour has put me in an impossible position. Due
to the strict time limits you have unreasonably imposed, I
have been unable to obtain legal representation in the time
available to persuade you to reconsider.
Nevertheless I have been told it is likely that some of your
decisions would be regarded by a court as so outrageous or
contrary to law that I might well have a case for judicial
review.
I would urge you to properly consider your legal
responsibilities and the requirements of natural justice,
and to reconsider your unreasonable decisions so far. If
I have to find and instruct solicitors to bring judicial
review proceedings I will naturally expect to recover my
legal costs from you.
APPEAL SUBMISSION
In any case, please find attached such an appeal submission
as I am able to make at the present time.
In my appeal statement I will make assertions about what may
be found in my own witness statement as victim, and in the
witness statement of the independent witness and the record
of the interview under caution of the offender. These
statements are necessarily largely supposition on my part,
but they represent my best attempt to recall and infer what
ought to be in the relevant documents.
I will of course be pursuing my attempts to obtain the
documents I have requested. It is probable that when I
review those documents additional grounds for complaint will
come to light. I may therefore need to extend my grounds
for appeal in the future.
I will also make assertions about the proper use of the
roads. These assertions will be backed up by quotes from
Cyclecraft but obviously the best practice for cycling
depends critically on the road layout, conditions, and other
road users' behaviour. Because of the time limits you have
imposed, and because of the obstruction by the Police, I'm
not able to present expert evidence which would conclusively
establish the answers to these questions.
In my view it would be unreasonable of you to come to a
contrary conclusion to my view regarding proper cycling
without enabling me to submit expert evidence on the
subject.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and let me know
your responses as soon as possible.
Yours faithfully
Dr Ian Jackson
Enclosed:
Copy of information request to the Cambridgeshire
Constabulary
Appeal submission (as far as is practical)
--
Mike Lewis
"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:jdA*mf...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Various names etc. redacted:
<snip>
> o Judicial Review: I have been advised that some of
> your decisions so far in this case are sufficiently
> unreasonable that they could be overturned in a
> Judicial Review.
<snippety snip snip snip>
Isn't that going to be expensive?
Alan Braggins
>"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>> o Judicial Review: I have been advised that some of
>> your decisions so far in this case are sufficiently
>> unreasonable that they could be overturned in a
>> Judicial Review.
><snippety snip snip snip>
>Isn't that going to be expensive?
That doesn't change how unreasonable the decisions are, so it might be
worth mentioning even if Ian wasn't prepared to pay to take it that far.
And it's possible that the CTC Cyclists' Defence Fund might consider it
in the interests of cyclists in general that it was reviewed.
Ian Jackson
Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>And it's possible that the CTC Cyclists' Defence Fund might consider it
>in the interests of cyclists in general that it was reviewed.
I have indeed been contact with the CTC and the CDF. I've had very
positive noises from them, although decisions by the CDF to support
cases take a lot longer than was available. And of course their
resources are limited. They might feel there were better ways to
improve the lot of cyclists than beating up the IPCC for being
useless.
It's possible that recent criticism of the IPCC will encourage them to
reconsider. If not then I'll certainly be looking to take it further
- but not as a litigant in person. There are several other bodies who
will be looking around now for frustrated but determined complainants
willing to be fodder for cases against the IPCC.
Simon Lane
wrote:
> In article <ehk20-B5D1E8.16223506092...@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk>,
> Espen H. Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Why would it be too late for the licensing office to investigate?
>
> Because 6 months later everyone who would need to be interviewed would
> have forgotten the details (or be alleged by the taxi driver to have
> forgotten).
Ian,
There are several witnesses. They will all agree that you were hit by
the car. Even over a year ago, as it is now, it seems likely to be
enough evidence to secure a conviction for, at the very least, Driving
Without Due Care and Attention.
Have you thought about contacting the witnesses yourself, taking
statements now (you could tape them), and perhaps considering asking
them to swear affidavits? This should arrest any potential atrophy of
the evidence.
You could then try going for a private criminal prosecution. It's a
lot of work, and does carry some risk, but I mention it in the context
that you are talking about seeking judicial review in your more recent
posts.
In short, it seems to me that a private criminal case would achieve
what you really want from this directly, i.e. sanctions against the
driver, and indirectly would draw attention to the failings of the
various authorities.
Good luck!
Simon.
Patrick Gosling
You are aware that the CPS have the right (which they exercise) to take
over any attempted private criminal prosecution, and, if they choose,
to discontinue it?
-patrick.
Simon Lane
> In article <579a8981-ae78-401f-96ac-bb52e3cc9...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
No I didn't. But, in this case, why would they? NB This is a real
question, not a rhetorical one.
My only experience of this kind of thing was when I was running the
trishaws in London. The CPS prosecuted a rider for plying for hire as
a hackney carriage and lost the case, not on evidence but on a point
of law (by charging separate fares they were stage carriages and
therefore not hackney carriages).
The CPS decided not to appeal to the High Court on the point of law.
Presumably consequently one of the hackney carriage associations then
took a private criminal prosecution against another rider, lost,
appealed on the point of law, then lost again.
My point is that even though it was pretty obvious that the private
case would fail the CPS did not object. Here I posit that it is far
from obvious that the case would fail.
I wonder what Ian's exposure would be if he tried this approach. If
the CPS did step in and wind it up would the driver be able to claim
any significant costs against Ian?
I still expect it's more likely to be effective, and cheaper, than
judicial review.
Simon.
Roland Perry
<3709978a-4393-4bcb...@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, at
02:35:49 on Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Simon Lane <s...@cb1.com> remarked:
>My only experience of this kind of thing was when I was running the
>trishaws in London. The CPS prosecuted a rider for plying for hire as
>a hackney carriage and lost the case, not on evidence but on a point
>of law (by charging separate fares they were stage carriages and
>therefore not hackney carriages).
>
>The CPS decided not to appeal to the High Court on the point of law.
>Presumably consequently one of the hackney carriage associations then
>took a private criminal prosecution against another rider, lost,
>appealed on the point of law, then lost again.
>
>My point is that even though it was pretty obvious that the private
>case would fail the CPS did not object.
That sounds to me much more like the CPS wanting to see what would
happen at the High Court, but at someone else's expense!
--
Roland Perry
Simon Lane
[...]
> That sounds to me much more like the CPS wanting to see what would
> happen at the High Court, but at someone else's expense!
True. Note in this case the CPS were never involved as I understand
it, so their judgement has not been called into question.
Theoretically they could even agree to take the case over and then
successfully prosecute it.
Nick Maclaren
In article <3709978a-4393-4bcb...@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Simon Lane <s...@cb1.com> writes:
|> On Feb 29, 10:23=A0am, j...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) wrote:
|> >
|> > >You could then try going for a private criminal prosecution.
|> >
|> > You are aware that the CPS have the right (which they exercise) to take
|> > over any attempted private criminal prosecution, and, if they choose,
|> > to discontinue it?
|>
|> question, not a rhetorical one.
They often do so to protect politically protected lawbreakers from
being prosecuted by the peasantry. It is relatively rare that they do
so when the case isn't politically contentious, but it does happen.
"Not in the public interest" is the usual excuse.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.