Cambs police 1 : Overanking taxi driver 0
Calvin
What a pillock!
Rule number 1: Obey the law - don't block St. Andrews street for
everyone else because you want to get on an already full taxi rank.
Rule number 2: When a policeman politely but authoritatively asks you
to move on don't move a few inches then stop, still blocking the road.
Rule number 3: When the still calm policeman asks you your name don't
refuse to tell him.
Rule number 4: Don't keep refusing to tell him who you are and instead
tell him to take your taxi number.
Technically the guy was not actually arrested for overanking but
rather for refusing to give his details (having been asked many
times). In reality of course the *reason* for his arrest was his
inconsiderate and then downright aggressive attitude.
I know that arrest is not the same as charge but the ride to the
station in the back of a blue and white taxi along with the wasted
afternoon and the associated loss of earnings might just have got the
message across. On the other hand given his attitude maybe not.
Shame it costs so much police time to do this though.
Overall I was very impressed with the actions of the policeman. He
acted calmly and politely throughout, even though the taxi driver and
his friends were becoming aggressive and unreasonable. At one point
he was surrounded by a group of about 7 all shouting at him. Well
done.
Ian Jackson
Calvin <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>I've just had the pleasure of watching the arrest of an overanker.
Fantastic.
>Overall I was very impressed with the actions of the policeman. He
>acted calmly and politely throughout, even though the taxi driver and
>his friends were becoming aggressive and unreasonable. At one point
>he was surrounded by a group of about 7 all shouting at him. Well
>done.
Can I suggest that you (if you haven't already done so) make yourself
known to the police as a potential witness ? They may face some kind
of complaint or contrived allegations, and an independent passerby's
account may be very helpful to them.
--
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
Whatever
"Calvin" <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:84db66ff-1f91-4364...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
As I have said before I applaud action gainst the overranking, not only here
but could do with some action at Station Road as well.
However, I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for
obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence to refuse
to give your details as yet in this situation, this will obviously change
with I.D card introduction, as he was in a local authority licenced vehicle
he only has to provide his licence number on his badge which also has his
photo on it, so technically he had a point although yes, stupid to argue it
considering the situation.
1 yes
2 yes
3 commeon sense not rule
4 no
Roland Perry
02:08:16 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
> I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for
>obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence to
>refuse to give your details as yet in this situation,
Not giving your details after committing a traffic offence is surely a
very old offence?
--
Roland Perry
Paul Rudin
Drivers of motor vehicles are required to provide details to the police
on request whether or not they've committed any offence, Shirley?
Calvin
> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes:
> > 02:08:16 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Whatever <whate...@whatever.whatever>
> > remarked:
> >> I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for
> >> obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence
> >> to refuse to give your details as yet in this situation,
>
> > Not giving your details after committing a traffic offence is surely a
> > very old offence?
>
> Drivers of motor vehicles are required to provide details to the police
> on request whether or not they've committed any offence, Shirley?
IANAL but I'm quite sure the policeman knows exactly what he can
arrest for - it is one of his areas of professional expertise after
all. Frankly I would have arrested him simply for being such a prat,
but that's probably one reason I'm not a policeman!
Whatever
lol good point well presented. :)
As stated, not disputing being arrested merely the conjecture as to offence
arrested for.
Whatever
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FaAWwiWS...@perry.co.uk...
refuse to give details, he offered his number, this number is on his licence
badge as is his name and photograph, together with the plate on his vehicle
he would be more easily traced and or identity proven than you or I saying
we are John Smith or whoever....
My point is simply that I hope it more likely he was arrested for the
offence made, how many here joind no2id or do most belong to the naive
'nothing to hide' brigade?
Whatever
"Paul Rudin" <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87wsaki...@rudin.co.uk...
"In this situation" he complied, the details offered should have been
sufficient, not saying he should not have been arrested merely the assumed
offence arrested for, in fact would you not rather it was for the offence
itself? As I would have thought it more productive as a future warning both
for himself and any other pillock overranking, than for any side issue in
any case.
Patrick Gosling
Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever> wrote:
>However, I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for
>obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence to refuse
>to give your details as yet in this situation,
Section 25 PACE
Section 50 Police Reform Act 2002
Sections 164,165 Road Traffic Act 1988
-patrick.
Roland Perry
12:29:27 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
>You can do better Roland, "in this situation" was the clue, he did not
>refuse to give details, he offered his number, this number is on his
>licence badge as is his name and photograph, together with the plate on
>his vehicle he would be more easily traced and or identity proven than
>you or I saying we are John Smith or whoever....
Those details are for the benefit of the public, who have no powers to
demand chapter and verse, and for whom going through the taxi licencing
office is a useful additional weapon. I'm not the slightest bit
surprised the police want the normal "name and address" and driving
licence that they'd require of any other driver.
--
Roland Perry
Mike Clark
"Whatever" <what...@whatever.whatever> wrote:
>
> "Paul Rudin" <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:87wsaki...@rudin.co.uk...
[snip]
> > Drivers of motor vehicles are required to provide details to the police
> > on request whether or not they've committed any offence, Shirley?
>
> "In this situation" he complied, the details offered should have been
> sufficient, not saying he should not have been arrested merely the
> assumed offence arrested for, in fact would you not rather it was for
> the offence itself? As I would have thought it more productive as a
> future warning both for himself and any other pillock overranking,
> than for any side issue in any case.
>
From the point of view of the police officer I'm sure the response that
he would require first would be that of any other driver of a
motor vehicle i.e. name and address, driving licence details and
insurance (also if relevant MOT). For a driver in charge of a
motor vehicle not to provide that information to a police officer on
request is an automatic offence in itself.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Tony Raven
50119f...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, csam...@bigfoot.com
says...
>
> IANAL but I'm quite sure the policeman knows exactly what he can
> arrest for - it is one of his areas of professional expertise after
> all. Frankly I would have arrested him simply for being such a prat,
> but that's probably one reason I'm not a policeman!
>
You have a touching faith in the average policeman's understanding of
the law which has been anecdotally demonstrated on this newsgroup many
times in the past.
--
Tony
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
Calvin
> In article <42aef763-ca44-4c05-97cd-
> 50119f60d...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, csambr...@bigfoot.com
> says...
>
>
>
> > IANAL but I'm quite sure the policeman knows exactly what he can
> > arrest for - it is one of his areas of professional expertise after
> > all. Frankly I would have arrested him simply for being such a prat,
> > but that's probably one reason I'm not a policeman!
>
> You have a touching faith in the average policeman's understanding of
> the law which has been anecdotally demonstrated on this newsgroup many
> times in the past.
>
> --
> Tony
>
> "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
> taken place"
> George Bernard Shaw
You're right, I do.
In my experience policemen are professional in what they do. Like any
professional they will sometimes make mistakes and like any human they
will sometimes act inappropriately. I know I do - don't you? My
"faith" lies in the fact that all policemen I've had contact with,
both acting as policemen and socially, have appeared to me to be
reasonable people trying to do a sometimes difficult job to the best
of their ability. Of course that ability will vary between
individuals but on a very basic point such as this I would certainly
expect a trained professional to know the things for which they could
or could not arrest.
I'm quite sure that in this particular case the policeman had a choice
of reasons to arrest or could very easily have allowed the situation
to develop to a point where an offence was committed if he had so
wished. In my opinion he was very tolerant.
Roland Perry
<3ee8f851-fd1f-46af...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, at
07:21:29 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Calvin <csam...@bigfoot.com> remarked:
>I'm quite sure that in this particular case the policeman had a choice
>of reasons to arrest or could very easily have allowed the situation
>to develop to a point where an offence was committed if he had so
>wished.
Wasn't an offence committed when the taxi driver refused to give his
name and address?
--
Roland Perry
Brian Morrison
> IANAL but I'm quite sure the policeman knows exactly what he can
> arrest for
These days everything is an arrestable offence, just another indication
of our slide towards becoming a police state.
--
Brian
Espen Koht
"Whatever" <what...@whatever.whatever> wrote:
> as far as I am aware it is not an offence to refuse
> to give your details as yet in this situation, this will obviously change
> with I.D card introduction, as he was in a local authority licenced vehicle
> he only has to provide his licence number on his badge which also has his
> photo on it, so technically he had a point
Interesting theory. Have you got any evidence that being in a 'local
authority licenced vehicle' grants such a privilege? In any case, from
the description of the event, it is more likely that he didn't offer to
show his badge, as it would have his name on it, but pointed out the
'taxi number' on the vehicle, which wouldn't be sufficient as it doesn't
prove who was operating the vehicle.
Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}
I'd say the details offered were not sufficient, they merely confirm who should
have been in the car. Of course, if you still have an old non-photo driving
licence (as I do), I guess even that isn't sufficient to prove it's me.
--
Dave
da v...@llondel.org (without the space)
So many gadgets, so little time.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
mr...@nospam.cam.ac.uk (Mike Clark) wrote:
> From the point of view of the police officer I'm sure the response that
> he would require first would be that of any other driver of a motor
> vehicle i.e. name and address, driving licence details and insurance
> (also if relevant MOT). For a driver in charge of a motor vehicle
> not to provide that information to a police officer on request is an
> automatic offence in itself.
Not quite. Some of those details (e.g. Driving Licence, insurance and MOT)
can be produced later at a police station.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Paul Rudin
That's the statutory defence to the offence (i.e. they won't prosecute)
- but you still commit an offence but not providing stuff in the first
place.
Whatever
Whatever
Not normally an arrestable one though.
Look, my point is not to defend this guy at all, I am equally happy as any
here that he was taken away, my concern is over the assumption to the actual
charge used.
Whatever
Exactly, he did, the obstruction caused would (and was) my guess, but some
here seem to prefer it to be for failing to produce I.D. on demand instead
of the act that, lets face it, is the reason people here are happy the guy
was caught for and the very reason he was being asked in the first place.
Whatever
"Patrick Gosling" <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:gq02ft$cd7$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
licenced vehicle driver.
More to the point then would be to ask how the police cleared the
obstruction?
As they are not licenced to drive a licenced hackney carriage did they get a
lorry to take it, or tow it, or illegally drive it themselves?
You see life does not allways mirror the black and white documents.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Rudin) wrote:
Are you saying you can be arrested for not producing those documents?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Whatever
No, they are also legally acceptable proofs of I.D. and are unable to be
held unless all other documents are in order and verified by officials, he
could still be given a producer and have to provide the other documents as
would any of us at a later date.
You all seem to miss the other point here that it was claimed by the OP that
he refused to give his name, perhaps this guy did not realise it was on the
same thing that had his number on it that was provided and has therefore
jumped ahead on the reason of arrest, as I said, I am as happy as any here
of the event, just not that we should all assume a non acceptable reason for
someone to be arrested should become acceptable by folklore, it is already a
dark future ahead of us with respect to I.D. cards etc, although I presume a
fair few reading this will just use the "nothing to hide" line.....
I have maintained from the beginning here that he was right to be arrested
and wrong to have caused obstruction, tell you what, pick over this instead
eh?
More to the point then would be to ask how the police cleared the
obstruction?
As they are not licenced to drive a licenced hackney carriage did they get a
lorry to take it, or tow it, or illegally drive it themselves? Answers on a
postcard... ( I have assumed he did not drive it round to the station
himself as OP said he had a ride in a blue and white car or somesuch from
the scene).
Whatever
"Mike Clark" <mr...@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:2cbb003f50....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
> In message <UOWdnSsHxsdBFl7U...@posted.plusnet>
> "Whatever" <what...@whatever.whatever> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Paul Rudin" <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:87wsaki...@rudin.co.uk...
> [snip]
>> > Drivers of motor vehicles are required to provide details to the police
>> > on request whether or not they've committed any offence, Shirley?
>>
>> "In this situation" he complied, the details offered should have been
>> sufficient, not saying he should not have been arrested merely the
>> assumed offence arrested for, in fact would you not rather it was for
>> the offence itself? As I would have thought it more productive as a
>> future warning both for himself and any other pillock overranking,
>> than for any side issue in any case.
>>
>
> From the point of view of the police officer I'm sure the response that
> he would require first would be that of any other driver of a
> motor vehicle i.e. name and address, driving licence details and
> insurance (also if relevant MOT). For a driver in charge of a
> motor vehicle not to provide that information to a police officer on
> request is an automatic offence in itself.
No it is not, are you really saying that you expect to be arrested at the
roadside if you cannot provide your licence mot and insurance? Have you
actually ever been pulled over?
For the driver of a licenced hackney carriage, his badge and actively plated
vehicle already prove the legal requirement at the roadside, a producer
should be issued if in doubt (or a call to the licencing office, which the
police have the number I am sure), Licenced Hackney carriages are MOT
excempt BTW. (Due to having to pass a far nore stringent test every 6 months
undertaken by the council).
I think you all here just think you turn up at A1, camcab or Panther or
wherever and they give you a car and off you go? You probably do think the
cars are all supplied by the companies...... I have no sympathy for those
behaing like idiots out ther, taxi or otherwise, but some here could do well
to remember not everyone would invest there own time and money to such an
extent to provide a service that gets sniped at like it is here.
I guarantee you that if you knew what was involved to do their job, you
would not do it.
Roland Perry
21:31:45 on Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
>>I'm not the slightest bit surprised the police want the normal "name
>>and address" and driving licence that they'd require of any other
>>driver.
>
>No, they are also legally acceptable proofs of I.D. and are unable to
>be held unless all other documents are in order and verified by
>officials,
I've never seen a taxi driver's badge on a list of "acceptable ID"
(however difficult they may be to get). Try getting on a plane with one.
What I'm sure it really is, is acceptable ID to a disgruntled passenger
wanting to make a complaint. And I wouldn't expect the driver to have to
produce anything else in those circumstances.
>he could still be given a producer and have to provide the other
>documents as would any of us at a later date.
Agreed, for the "others".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
21:23:45 on Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Whatever <what...@whatever.whatever>
remarked:
>More to the point then would be to ask how the police cleared the
>obstruction?
>As they are not licenced to drive a licenced hackney carriage did they
>get a lorry to take it, or tow it, or illegally drive it themselves?
Why would it be illegal for them to drive it? They won't be picking up
passengers en-route.
--
Roland Perry
Espen Koht
"Whatever" <what...@whatever.whatever> wrote:
> For the driver of a licenced hackney carriage, his badge and actively plated
> vehicle already prove the legal requirement at the roadside, a producer
> should be issued if in doubt (or a call to the licencing office, which the
> police have the number I am sure), Licenced Hackney carriages are MOT
> excempt BTW. (Due to having to pass a far nore stringent test every 6 months
> undertaken by the council).
There is no evidence, and even reason to believe, that the driver in
this case offered his badge as proof of his identity or for any reason,
so I don't understand why you keep assuming he did.
Whatever
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
news:5cqas4lhgbflkjec9...@4ax.com...
> "Whatever" <what...@whatever.whatever> considered Sat, 21 Mar 2009
> in the course of their duty. Of course, the necessity would expire as
> soon as the obstruction was cleared.
YSTR incorrectly then. In this case the most they should have done would be
to push it out of the way until appropriate measures could be take, I have
no idea if this is what they did, I am just going on the OP.
Whatever
Because it is illegal for anyone without the relevant local authority
licence to do so, intent of use is nothing to do with it, otherwise their
wives could take the taxi shopping or whatever could they not?
Whatever
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk considered Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:26:57
> police, and to than obstruct them in the course of their duty (by
> refusing to move on) is pretty much asking for it.
> I thought that PACE required anyone to give their details to a
> constable having reasonable cause to demand them.
> It seems that this constable had plenty of grounds by then.
And as you can see, I have applauded the actions taken in regard to the
obstruction, my point is purely about the jump to conclude that he was
arrested for failing to give his name and address as opposed to the more
likely causes which you yourself just mentioned.
For the sake of repeating myself again, he did give his details in as much
as he was legally obliged to do so at the scene, is that clear enough?
Whatever
What "others" Roland?
You do not have to carry by law in this country any form of I.D., not yet
anyway.
He could say he was basil brush and the officer would still need reasonable
doubt to demand he prove it, in this case with a photo I.D. Name and badge
number together with a linked licenced taxi with a council issued plate to
match, would I think, give little room to doubt his identity as long as said
badge said he was basil brush, the point here is he did not say he was basil
brush but was willing to hand over his badge that proved he was, where is
this failing to give a name? Is there some sort of verbal only law some of
you are aware of that I am not?
BTW I did not say simply "acceptable" but "legally acceptable" and in this
case it was, whatever you may think does not alter the facts.
Whatever
"Espen Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ehk20-CECA61....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
3 reasons really, first is the OP "Rule number 4: Don't keep refusing to
tell him who you are and instead
tell him to take your taxi number" which may be interpreted either way I
suppose (to my knowledge taxi drivers refer to themselves by number, their
badge number, as this stays with them, the car number may change over time).
Additionally it is a legal requirement for all taxi drivers in Cambridge
(private hire or hackney carriage) to provide on demand their badge, failure
to do so will mean the loss of that badge and therefore his livelihood (they
are not to work without it simple as that, no excuses), the police know this
very well, furthermore as a condition of his hackney licence it would have
had to be displayed visibly either upon hs person, so the officer could see
it anyway, or on the dash, where he could also have seen it pretty easily.
Thirdly, as the OP has not made it clear what was and what was not offered,
I asked a friend who works out there and it was the badge number offered not
the plate from the taxi according to him, obviously that is just hearsay but
so is the OP at the moment, hope that aids your understanding.
It surprises me you are so virilent in trying to prove he was arrested for a
more minor infraction than the one he obviously commited, surely if he was
arrested for obstruction that is a far better 'lesson' to learn and signal
to others?
Whatever
Interesting theory, have you got any evidence he pointed to the taxi number
on the vehicle?
Or indeed that he did not offer to show his badge? (In which case he will
have far more to worry about than wasted time at the station in regard to
loss of earnings). More likely says who? were you there either?
As stated elsewhere, there is NO requirement in this country at present
requiring you BY LAW to carry proof of I.D. for showing on demand to the
police or anyone else, it IS NOT an arrestable offence (assuming your
pockets aren't empty, and then it would not be for refusing details) and in
this case the badge would either have been produced negating your argument
or not in which case the offence would have been to be driving unlicenced as
per the byelaws, either way NOT likely (according to me :)) to have been for
refusing to give his name, it just does not stack up.