UK has gone Big Brother crazy!

This bit:

A CPS spokeswoman said: "Cost is not a consideration in our decision to prosecute.


Madness.
 
i saw that on the news this morning... quite appalling... I have done the same thing a couple of times myself :oops:

Maybe i should also stop using my hazard when upcoming motorway slows incase this could be misconstrued if a speed trap is nearby.
 
I'd be surprised if this was just the odd bit of flashing as he proceeded on his way...more likely he was parked up or something. But either way I can't see this getting past a decent lawyer in normal circumstances......
 
It also will get you a ticket here as well and what you get charged with is illegal use of your lights or safety device.
 
I agree that we may not have heard the full story here, I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled over.

My issue is, they can either say he was irresponsibly using his lights.... fair point. maybe, or at least it makes sense.

However, if their issue is "interfering with a police officer"... if they are not "hiding" (as they are not supposed to do) then what is the problem? If he danced in the line of sight of their speed gun then fair enough, but all he is guilty of is getting people to slow down... erm... hardly a criminal matter, is it?!

Like I said, I don't think we have the full story here, but either way this case is nonsense.... the courts allow people warnings for some pretty serious stuff, yet this guy is labelled a "criminal"... really?!
 
mmm, very interesting indeed:

"For there to be an obstruction of a police constable in the execution of his duty, by the giving of a warning of the presence of a speed trap, is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned either were themselves exceeding the speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap?"
 
sp3ctre said:
mmm, very interesting indeed:

"For there to be an obstruction of a police constable in the execution of his duty, by the giving of a warning of the presence of a speed trap, is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned either were themselves exceeding the speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap?"
Click to expand...


exactly, so if you warn a car thief who is being watched by the police, and he escapes, then clearly its obstruction, but for that to be the case in this situation they would have had to have proven that the vehicles were already speeding, and in doing so would have completed their duties and not be obstructed. :headbang:

You can tell this was tried in a magistrates (i.e. amateurs) court......
 
"Apparently " the police were planning to warn him but he got lippy and laid into them (verbally) so they decided to book him :roll:
from BBC Breakfast this morning and Quentin whatshisname
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom