# Police stopping cyclists in Preston



## GGB_Andrew (12 Oct 2011)

And asking cyclists' for proof of ownership of bike as part of an operation to crackdown on bike crime.

We featured this story on our site yesterday and have had plenty of comments already. Would be great to know how you feel about what the Police are doing up in Preston

http://www.goinggoingbike.com/blog/stop-and-proof-campaign-brings-results/


----------



## diapason (12 Oct 2011)

Hmmm - how to you 'prove' ownership of a bike, unless you've bought it from a bike shop and have kept the receipt. I built my bike up from bits, and would be hard pushed to find any documentary evidence now.


----------



## BSRU (12 Oct 2011)

GGB_Andrew said:


> And asking cyclists' for proof of ownership of bike as part of an operation to crackdown on bike crime.
> 
> We featured this story on our site yesterday and have had plenty of comments already. Would be great to know how you feel about what the Police are doing up in Preston
> 
> http://www.goinggoin...brings-results/



Sounds like a good idea but I would be very concerned as my main commuter bike is a couple of years old now and I have no written proof it is actually mine.


----------



## addictfreak (12 Oct 2011)

I have 4 bikes, 3 I bought new and 1 second hand. I must admit I have no proof that I actually own any of them!


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (12 Oct 2011)

I have my bike registered on the immobilise.com database, to which the police have access. Presumably they could check the database from the registration number or the frame number.

(Of course, they would have to lie down on the dirty, wet floor to read the frame number because I have no intention of turning my bike upside down and getting air in the hydraulic brake lines.)


----------



## wiggydiggy (12 Oct 2011)

It does say they are only stopping 'suspicious' bikes, and despite reports from london (and elsewhere) of thieves dressing like cyclist to avoid detection the criminal element in preston isn't that sophisticated!


----------



## thnurg (12 Oct 2011)

There is no legal requirement to prove ownership of a bike. If they suspect that the bike is stolen then it is up to them to prove it, not for you to prove innocence.

Nor do you have to talk to them. IANAL but I DO know about Rice v Connolly 1966 where it was decided that refusing to give information to Police is not grounds for arrest.


----------



## HovR (12 Oct 2011)

Whilst it sounds like a good idea in theory, it doesn't sound like it would work very well in practice. I know for sure that I don't have any proof of ownership for my bikes.

I think this comment on the blog page sums it up pretty well:



> I don’t carry any proof of ownership – why should I? Unless the police can prove a bike is stolen then they are overstepping the mark – innocent until proven guilty.



In the same way that I couldn't prove on the spot that I own my bike, they must also be able to prove if I didn't own it before they could confiscate it.

Regarding proving ownership; I guess the easiest thing to do would be to stick a picture of the frame number in your wallet?


----------



## LosingFocus (12 Oct 2011)

HovR said:


> Regarding proving ownership; I guess the easiest thing to do would be to stick a picture of the frame number in your wallet?



I was thinking similar. Ive got snaps of my bike(s) on my phone, dating back to March.


----------



## Bman (12 Oct 2011)

Its good that they are doing something.... I appreciate the thought and effort. 

I dont actually own my bike, its a c2w bike


----------



## thnurg (12 Oct 2011)

I've just read the article and it angered me. This is NOT a police state and they can't do just whatever they bloody well feel like. Their job is to uphold the law, not to make it up as they go along in order to make their jobs easier.
If some idiot in a funny costume tries to take my bike just because I can't prove it's mine they will have a fight on their hands.
They have no lawful right to confiscate a bike unless they have evidence that the bike has been used in unlawful activity.

If I'm feeling cooperative then I'll show them my ID and let them take a photo in case a bike matching mine is ever reported stolen.


----------



## Silver Fox (12 Oct 2011)

thnurg said:


> There is no legal requirement to prove ownership of a bike. If they suspect that the bike is stolen then it is up to them to prove it, not for you to prove innocence.
> 
> *Nor do you have to talk to them*. IANAL but I DO know about Rice v Connolly 1966 where it was decided that refusing to give information to Police is not grounds for arrest.



Not entirely the best advice to give. 

Maybe supplying your name and address so the police can at least verify who you are would be a good idea otherwise you may find yourself arrested on suspicion of theft of pedal cycle.


Have you heard of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.


----------



## CopperCyclist (12 Oct 2011)

Careful, R v Connelly is to do with a (completely unlawful) arrest of someone who refused to explain what they were doing in an area of give any details. It's a bit different to suspecting a bike is stolen, and then the rider adds to that suspicion by refusing to give any details.

And for the liberal ones who are starting to panic, chill. No one is going to haul you away to the nick and your bike away to the police station just because you can't prove you own it. I couldn't prove ownership of mine either. The absolute MOST that would likely be done is note made of the bike you were riding and your details in case it was reported stolen later - and that really is the most, I suspect most members of the public will simply be cycling by. The operation sounds like a decent, proactive op and as a cyclist, I'd welcome it.

Sigh. Go on, I'm ready now. Let loose with the police state posts, the arguments of your right to not be hassled, and basically all the other complaints that some people tend to love using - until the moment they actually become a victim of crime.


----------



## ColinJ (12 Oct 2011)

Silver Fox said:


> Not entirely the best advice to give.
> 
> Maybe supplying your name and address so the police can at least verify who you are would be a good idea otherwise you may find yourself arrested on suspicion of theft of pedal cycle.
> 
> Have you heard of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.


I did a quick search for the PCEA 1984 and found that it was modified by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and according to that Wikipedia article ...

Police constables may arrest anyone they have reasonable grounds to believe is guilty of an offence they suspect has been committed. These powers to arrest only apply if one or more of the following reasons apply:

*To enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his "real name")*
*As reason 1 but in respect of the person's address*
(etc.)

So they need to have a 'reasonable' suspicion that you are riding a stolen bike, but once they have that you do have to talk to them. I suppose you could try arguing that didn't have reasonable grounds to suspect that your bike was nicked but you'd have to talk to them to do that, and I don't think you'd get further than the police station if you did!*
*


----------



## wiggydiggy (12 Oct 2011)

Mountain out of a molehill here surely? Besides if you get stopped just lock it to the nearest lampost. Let em try and take it then


----------



## totallyfixed (12 Oct 2011)

Blimey, they can't do anything right according to some on here, like the OP said, chill. I think it would be great if every force took the same initiative. Bikes are easy to steal and easily disposed of, any move to combat bike crime gets a tick in my book.


----------



## screenman (12 Oct 2011)

The people shouting the loudest about how they would not let the police dictate to them are also the one's that will be moaning the police did nothing when their bike was nicked.

Proactive policing I am all for it.


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2011)

LosingFocus said:


> I was thinking similar. Ive got snaps of my bike(s) on my phone, dating back to March.



Was March when you stole it?


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2011)

I think if I were stopped I would want to know the grounds for their "reasonable suspicion" that it was stolen. Just stopping people at random on the streets they can't have any grounds for reasonable suspicion AFAICS


----------



## Bman (12 Oct 2011)

All they have to do is stop a cyclist and ask them a few questions about when and where they got the bike. The way they present their answers and/or defend themselves will make it pretty obvious if they are telling the truth. 

That coupled with what they are wearing where they are etc, is enough for reasonable suspision.


----------



## HovR (12 Oct 2011)

The issue is having a fool proof method of linking a bike to its owner. Sure, you could present an image of the frame number, or you riding the bike, but what is stopping a bike thief from also doing that after they have had the bike for a day or two?

Receipts aren't designed for proof of ownership over a long period of time, and as such they are made of cheap materials and inks. I have a receipt from August 2011 in my wallet, and already the ink has rubbed off to near-unreadable. 

I believe that for this to work effectively, there would need to be a mandatory centralized government run ownership system, similar to that of cars - But then of course we have a whole new range of inconveniences, with displaying tax discs/sticker equivalents, and ownership transfer etc.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Oct 2011)

well judging by most of the comments not many of you have ever been stopped by the police when they're keeping their eye out for a stolen bike. It goes something like this...


Policeman: "Hello sir, without looking at your bike, can you tell me what make or model it is?"

Me on my bike: "Yeah its a blah blah blah."

Policeman: "OK Cheers."

or alternatively...

Policeman: "Hello sir, without looking at your bike, can you tell me what make or model it is?"

Me on a bike: "Er... no... i er.... just borrowed it off a mate... um"

Policeman would then ask you to step off the bike whilst he/she asks who your 'mate' is, etc...



it's really not worth getting your knickers in a twist over.


----------



## semislickstick (12 Oct 2011)

HovR said:


> The issue is having a fool proof method of linking a bike to its owner. Sure, you could present an image of the frame number, or you riding the bike, but what is stopping a bike thief from also doing that after they have had the bike for a day or two?
> 
> Receipts aren't designed for proof of ownership over a long period of time, and as such they are made of cheap materials and inks. I have a receipt from August 2011 in my wallet, and already the ink has rubbed off to near-unreadable.
> 
> I believe that for this to work effectively, there would need to be a mandatory centralized government run ownership system, similar to that of cars - But then of course we have a whole new range of inconveniences, with displaying tax discs/sticker equivalents, and ownership transfer etc.



...the immobilise site lets you register the frame number, load a photo and add a scan of the receipt if you want. The Police use the immobilise site to check items, don't they?

I wouldn't really be able to prove my bike was mine either, I assume the local police know/suspect who are riding on iffy bikes and this is to scare them.


----------



## thnurg (12 Oct 2011)

> Sigh. Go on, I'm ready now. Let loose with the police state posts, the arguments of your right to not be hassled, and basically all the other complaints that some people tend to love using - until the moment they actually become a victim of crime.



I don't mind being stopped and asked to cooperate with a few questions. It's their heavy handed statement that annoys me. As for moaning until I'm the victim of a crime, if you don't want your bike nicked then get it registered / postcoded and report it if stolen. I'll happily show the police that my bike does not have a stamp on it that correlates to a stamp that is recorded as stolen but they're not depriving me of my transport home just because "I don't look right".


----------



## HovR (12 Oct 2011)

semislickstick said:


> ...the immobilise site lets you register the frame number, load a photo and add a scan of the receipt if you want. The Police use the immobilise site to check items, don't they?



Most police forces do, and this almost solves the issue, however sadly it has yet to become _the _register for all bikes, and I would suggest that only a minority of bikes are registered there. If ALL bikes were registered, including frame numbers, a passport style photo of the owner, and a photo of your bike, it could work flawlessly. 

It also appears that the police force in question were not using this as an acceptable method of proof of ownership. (Maybe because it is not extremely widely known.)


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2011)

Bongman said:


> All they have to do is stop a cyclist and ask them a few questions about when and where they got the bike. The way they present their answers and/or defend themselves will make it pretty obvious if they are telling the truth.
> 
> That coupled with what they are wearing where they are etc, is enough for reasonable suspision.



The reasonable suspicion has to precede stopping you, not from digging around afterwards to find an excuse. http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/what_is.htm


----------



## LosingFocus (12 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> Was March when you stole it?


----------



## colly (12 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> The reasonable suspicion has to precede stopping you, not from digging around afterwards to find an excuse. http://www.met.polic...rch/what_is.htm




And reasonable suspicion might well be a sleek carbon road bike being ridden by Joe Slob wearing a pair of holey jeans and a loose fitting hoodie. In much the same way a 17 yr old with a baseball cap on driving a Bentley might be stopped.

Both might well be innocent of any crime but it looks suspicious.


----------



## Jezston (12 Oct 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Sigh. Go on, I'm ready now. Let loose with the police state posts, the arguments of your right to not be hassled, and basically all the other complaints that some people tend to love using - until the moment they actually become a victim of crime.



There doesn't seem to be any of that going here.

I'm more concerned by your statement suggesting an attitude from a police officer that people shouldn't make complaints of heavy handed policing if they want help from the police if they become victims of crime themselves. I'm perfectly comfortable praising the efforts of the police that caught and build a successful case against the two men who abducted and robbed me some years ago, along with condemning the misuse of anti terror legislation to arrest and seize the assets of peaceful protesters and an increase in surveillance of ordinary citizens.


----------



## Norm (12 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> I think if I were stopped I would want to know the grounds for their "reasonable suspicion" that it was stolen. Just stopping people at random on the streets they can't have any grounds for reasonable suspicion AFAICS


I think failing the Attitude Test like that would be grounds for reasonable suspicion.


----------



## Chutzpah (12 Oct 2011)

Assuming the coppers who stopped me were friendly about it and explained why I had been stopped I wouldn't have an issue. It's not a huge amount different to when I was younger and being asked to pull over in my car a few times and prove it was my car and that I was insured to drive it. In the first instance the policeman was up front and said it was because of my age, the second time they were again upfront and said it was because of my age and the fact I was doing the speed limit at 2am in the morning






In both cases the police were great and I mentioned that I would be happy if the police pulled over my stolen car, or a drunk driver (which is what they assumed the second time I was pulled over)


So yes, it would be the attitude. For all of my bikes I could tell tales of where I'd bought them, the rides I'd been on, photos of me with them, where certain marks on the frame are, mention my contents insurance etc. plus my main bike is on the Immobilise database.


----------



## pshore (12 Oct 2011)

GGB_Andrew said:


> And asking cyclists' for proof of ownership of bike as part of an operation to crackdown on bike crime.
> 
> We featured this story on our site yesterday and have had plenty of comments already. Would be great to know how you feel about what the Police are doing up in Preston
> 
> http://www.goinggoingbike.com/blog/stop-and-proof-campaign-brings-results/



Ha ha. I'd struggle to find receipts but I would hapilly tell the bikes life story. They would be sending me on my way before you can say narcolepsy.


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> I think failing the Attitude Test like that would be grounds for reasonable suspicion.



You mean whether I was riding nose up or nose down?


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2011)

colly said:


> And reasonable suspicion might well be a sleek carbon road bike being ridden by Joe Slob wearing a pair of holey jeans and a loose fitting hoodie. In much the same way a 17 yr old with a baseball cap on driving a Bentley might be stopped.
> 
> Both might well be innocent of any crime but it looks suspicious.



"And that one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me.
Get him up against the wall."


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (12 Oct 2011)

Silver Fox said:


> Not entirely the best advice to give.
> 
> Maybe supplying your name and address so the police can at least verify who you are would be a good idea otherwise you may find yourself arrested on suspicion of theft of pedal cycle.
> *
> ...



Yes and I've been arrested under it countless times - and subsequently "de-arrested"

The police are our servants* not our masters

_*not my preferred choice of terminology_


----------



## CopperCyclist (12 Oct 2011)

Jezston said:


> There doesn't seem to be any of that going on here.
> 
> I'm more concerned by your statement suggesting an attitude from a police officer that people shouldn't make complaints of heavy handed policing if they want help from the police if they become victims of crime themselves.



Police state was actually mentioned once, albeit prior to my post!

I'm not for a second trying to suggest that. I am however insinuating that from experience, the people who are most outspoken about human rights are then the first to complain of lack of action/inability of the police to act when they later require it.

The above statement should not be read as 'I do not believe in human rights'. I'd also add that the people who speak out the most for human rights tend to be the most law abiding citizens that you can meet, that _possibly_ don't always have a full understanding of how low humans can really go.

Without scrolling up, the poster that suggested the make/model question spelt out exactly how I would act if on this initiative. Foolproof? Course not. Am I going to arrest you if you panic and forget your bike in the face of being stopped by the police? Unlikely. Am I going to weigh up the entire situation, and ask you a few more questions? Most probably.


----------



## Silver Fox (13 Oct 2011)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Yes and I've been arrested under it countless times - and subsequently "de-arrested"



Is there a reason why you've been arrested countless times ?


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (13 Oct 2011)

Silver Fox said:


> Is there a reason why you've been arrested countless times ?




Yes, there is

There is also a reason why I have been released without charge countless times


----------



## Wankelschrauben (13 Oct 2011)

My bike has no identifiable marking, no numbers on it anywhere and I have no proof of purchase.

Are they confiscating the bikes of those without proof of ownership?


----------



## wiggydiggy (13 Oct 2011)

Silver Fox said:


> Is there a reason why you've been arrested countless times ?



He likes to dress in stripey jumpers, wear a mask and carry a bag with 'swag' written on the side


----------



## Jezston (13 Oct 2011)

I heard it was because he discovered he looked really good in a bomb vest.


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Oct 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> My bike has no identifiable marking, no numbers on it anywhere and I have no proof of purchase.
> 
> Are they confiscating the bikes of those without proof of ownership?



Are you making it up as you go along?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (13 Oct 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Police state was actually mentioned once, albeit prior to my post!
> 
> I'm not for a second trying to suggest that. I am however insinuating that from experience, the people who are most outspoken about human rights are then the first to complain of lack of action/inability of the police to act when they later require it.
> 
> ...



And to each would be the same answer. "Mind your own business", with various levels of doppler shift as I pedal into the distance.

I would object to being stopped by the police for random questioning if I was on a bike , in a car, mBike, lorry , on foot or in a train. For those that whitter "What have you got to hide?" I would point out that as an innocent man I would expect to be able to make any journey without having to answer questions asked by the police.


----------



## benb (13 Oct 2011)

Chutzpah said:


> Assuming the coppers who stopped me were friendly about it and explained why I had been stopped I wouldn't have an issue. It's not a huge amount different to when I was younger and being asked to pull over in my car a few times and prove it was my car and that I was insured to drive it. In the first instance the policeman was up front and said it was because of my age, the second time they were again upfront and said it was because of my age and the fact I was doing the speed limit at *2am in the morning*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As opposed to 2am in the afternoon?


----------



## GGB_Andrew (13 Oct 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> My bike has no identifiable marking, no numbers on it anywhere and I have no proof of purchase.
> 
> Are they confiscating the bikes of those without proof of ownership?





Not every cyclist. From what Lancashire Police told me, decisions on confiscation after a cyclist has failed to prove ownership was very much based on the subjective decision of the officer doing the questioning. They were at pains to say that not every bike was confiscated


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Oct 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Careful, R v Connelly is to do with a (completely unlawful) arrest of someone who refused to explain what they were doing in an area of give any details. It's a bit different to suspecting a bike is stolen, and then the rider adds to that suspicion by refusing to give any details.
> 
> And for the liberal ones who are starting to panic, chill. No one is going to haul you away to the nick and your bike away to the police station just because you can't prove you own it. I couldn't prove ownership of mine either. The absolute MOST that would likely be done is note made of the bike you were riding and your details in case it was reported stolen later - and that really is the most, I suspect most members of the public will simply be cycling by. The operation sounds like a decent, proactive op and as a cyclist, I'd welcome it.
> 
> Sigh. Go on, I'm ready now. Let loose with the police state posts, the arguments of your right to not be hassled, and basically all the other complaints that some people tend to love using - until the moment they actually become a victim of crime.


would it be fair to suggest that they're hoping that somebody will come up with some obviously nonsense story and then use that as a springboard for an investigation?

I've been asked for proof of ownership, and all I could offer was the telephone number of a bike shop. They seemed happy with that.


----------



## Arch (13 Oct 2011)

Colleague of mine was stopped at York station, by a couple of coppers, who wanted to prove his bike was his. Their reasoning was that he appeared out of nowhere (he'd been crouching down by the bike locking it), and seemed to have been fiddling with the lock for a while (he was trying to get a decent locking position, and the key is stiff). They believed him in the end, but he had to unlock the bike for them (proving nothing, if he'd stolen the keys and bike together in a burglary, or simply stolen the bike and bought his own lock). He reckoned that fact that he was wearing a hooded top had something to do with it. And in the course of all this, he missed the train he was aiming for, which was annoying.

I have no receipts for any of my bikes, and only two are security marked - a process for which I had to produce no documentation. So it's hard to see how the police can tell you're telling the truth unless you really can't say without looking what colour it is or something, and it wouldn't take long to memorise a few features.


----------



## Alun (13 Oct 2011)

Do we want the police to take action on bike theft or not?


----------



## CopperCyclist (13 Oct 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> would it be fair to suggest that they're hoping that somebody will come up with some obviously nonsense story and then use that as a springboard for an investigation?



Nah. Most likely they have a list of recent easily identifiable stolen bikes, and they are looking for those primarily. Secondly they are likely looking for all of the 'known faces' - the ones that we know are out there burgling your houses, but tha we can't do a lot about until we actually catch them doing it - hoping to record whatever bike they are riding on, and then if a bike of this model is later reported stolen, then arrest them at a later date.

I stress I'm guessing here. I'm have no actual knowledge of this exact op, I'm just giving you my educated guess on what the aim/brief would be for it.


----------



## PK99 (13 Oct 2011)

On the one hand we have threads here and elsewhere: "My bike was nicked and the effing police would not do a damn thing about it" followed by me-too bleats that the effing police should show more interest and DO SOMETHING!

On the other hand we have a thread about the police trying to do something about bike theft and we have bleats by cyclists about being persecuted.

Make yer feckin minds up!


----------



## wiggydiggy (13 Oct 2011)

I'm happy to be stopped any time by PC Plod, I have been before when one mistook my menthol cigarette for something a bit stronger 

And reminding myself years back when walking back from an LBS with 2 tyres, a panda car pulled over and quizzed me where I'd got them. The shop was my bemused reply lol 

No harm no foul


----------



## User482 (13 Oct 2011)

Just so long as they don't arrest anyone on suspicion of possessing an offensive wife...

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y[/media]


----------



## Arch (13 Oct 2011)

Alun said:


> Do we want the police to take action on bike theft or not?



I think the thing is that we'd like them to show an interest when bikes are actually stolen, (or indeed cyclists knocked down), when there is a perception (possibly wrong) that not much is done. Also, although many of us are probably not going to be targetted by the police, we're aware that we can often no more prove we own our bikes than we can prove we own the clothes we're wearing.

I'm sure the Preston police are being discriminating (in a positive sense) when they stop cyclists. If they stopped all those who transgressed traffic rules for example, then those of us who are law abiding wouldn't worry so much!

On the other hand if I missed a train because of being stopped for doing nothing, like my colleague, I'd be pretty pissed off. I better watch out, I'm wearing a hoodie today!


----------



## PedAntics (13 Oct 2011)

PK99 said:


> On the one hand we have threads here and elsewhere: "My bike was nicked and the effing police would not do a damn thing about it" followed by me-too bleats that the effing police should show more interest and DO SOMETHING!
> 
> On the other hand we have a thread about the police trying to do something about bike theft and we have bleats by cyclists about being persecuted.
> 
> Make yer feckin minds up!



+1 . Who'd be a copper, can't win either way _IMHO. _


----------



## Nigeyy (13 Oct 2011)

This does seem to open up the question of how you prove the bike is yours (if people are similar to me, then it would be very hard to prove any of my bikes are mine). Without even going into the Police State thing:

Perhaps it's being overlooked that it's not so much the proof -but the reaction and kind of story proffered that the police are looking for. I'm sure if some people did steal bikes some of the stories would be immediately suspicious.

But is this the best use of police time? Wouldn't it be easier and more selective to just put a gps signal in a bike, leave it locked up (should a poor lock be used here?) and then track it if it moves? Eventually some undesirable will try to steal it I'm sure. Or what about promoting better locking technique and better style locks? Encourage businesses to provide safer areas to store bikes?

Edit: should say I appreciate the effort for bike theft by the police, and I don't mean it as a put down of them at all, I just wonder if this is the most efficient best value way to go about it.


----------



## snorri (13 Oct 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> and despite reports from london (and elsewhere) of thieves dressing like cyclist to avoid detection the



I get this vision of a thief leaving his house in lycra, helmet, goggles and gloves each morning, wandering around town all day raising suspicion everywhere he goes........ until the moment he pinches a bike and cycles home. 

IGMC


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> And to each would be the same answer. "Mind your own business", with various levels of doppler shift as I pedal into the distance.
> 
> I would object to being stopped by the police for random questioning if I was on a bike , in a car, mBike, lorry , on foot or in a train. For those that whitter "What have you got to hide?" I would point out that as an innocent man I would expect to be able to make any journey without having to answer questions asked by the police.



And if you bore a passing resemblance to man the police were looking for in your area would you still object to spending a brief moment of your life answering a couple of questions?

Or alternatively, as a victim of a crime and you supply a partial description to the police. eg. about six foot high, wearing a dark top and white baseball cap... would you object to the police stopping 3 or 4 people who fit that description before they finally '_get 'em_'?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (13 Oct 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> And if you bore a passing resemblance to man the police were looking for in your area would you still object to spending a brief moment of your life answering a couple of questions?



Yes, I'm innocent. I have no need to have my time wasted.


On the other hand would you object to the police coming to your door and asking you to prove that you lived there, all in the name of reducing burglary?

Or maybe being patted down as you left a shop, to reduce shoplifting?


----------



## diapason (13 Oct 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> And if you bore a passing resemblance to man the police were looking for in your area would you still object to *being shot dead as you sat minding your own business on the Tube?*



Bold italics my amendment


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Yes, *I'm innocent*. I have no need to have my time wasted.
> ...



and a police officer would know that how?



Little yellow Brompton said:


> On the other hand would you object to the police coming to your door and asking you to prove that you lived there, all in the name of reducing burglary?
> 
> Or maybe being patted down as you left a shop, to reduce shoplifting?



does this happen in your neck of the woods?


edit... ps. you failed to respond to my 2nd point:

_"Or alternatively, as a victim of a crime and you supply a partial description to the police. eg. about six foot high, wearing a dark top and white baseball cap... would you object to the police stopping 3 or 4 people who fit that description before they finally 'get 'em'?"

_how do you feel about the police randomly stopping other people in order to solve a crime?


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Oct 2011)

diapason said:


> Bold italics my amendment



Oh lets all conjure up extreme examples and pretend it's normal police behaviour.


It seems where some folk are concerned, the police cannot do right for doing wrong.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (13 Oct 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> and a police officer would know that how?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would object to the police randomly stopping any innocent people, they used to they called it "sus" and used it to discriminate against black males.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (13 Oct 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> Oh lets all conjure up extreme examples and pretend it's normal police behaviour.
> 
> 
> It seems where some folk are concerned, the police cannot do right for doing wrong.



No they can't do wrong for doing wrong. Stopping innocent people for questioning is not "doing right", the ends, do not, justify the means.


----------



## diapason (13 Oct 2011)

To quote Baron Acton (also attributed to Churchill, JFK and Nixon) "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". The police are being given ever greater powers. The majority of officers use those powers responsibly, but a sigificant minority do not. Many lawyers believe that we are living in what is fast becoming a police state - indeed, a friend of mine who grew up in Soviet Russia says that she enjoyed more freedom from surveillance in Leningrad in the 70's than we do now in England. We all need to be vigilant to make sure that the powers which we, the public, give to the police BY CONSENT are not abused.


----------



## CopperCyclist (13 Oct 2011)

Never mind me guys, there's a wall over there I'm going to bang my head against for a while!


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Oct 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Never mind me guys, there's a wall over there I'm going to bang my head against for a while!



I think I'll join you


----------



## diapason (13 Oct 2011)

Nothing personal. I did say "The majority of officers use those powers responsibly, "


----------



## wiggydiggy (13 Oct 2011)

snorri said:


> I get this vision of a thief leaving his house in lycra, helmet, goggles and gloves each morning, wandering around town all day raising suspicion everywhere he goes........ until the moment he pinches a bike and cycles home.
> 
> IGMC



Heheh it was on here somewhere and someone was talking about thieves in london carrying helmets and such with them, actually wearing a helmet in london is probably suspicious in itself


----------



## Christopher (14 Oct 2011)

I live in Preston and was stopped while biking home last night by a PCSO. There was tape across the cycle path & he said you can't come through here, this is a crime scene. It was in Bamber Bridge, technically a satellite village of Preston. Haven't seen owt on the news yet - it's in a stretch where people often drink in small groups. Never had any trouble off them myself though.
Have looked, nothing on the news yet. Hope it's nothing too serious.


----------



## Silver Fox (14 Oct 2011)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Yes, there is
> 
> There is also a reason why I have been released without charge countless times




Care to share what happened.


----------



## wiggydiggy (14 Oct 2011)

Christopher said:


> I live in Preston and was stopped while biking home last night by a PCSO. There was tape across the cycle path & he said you can't come through here, this is a crime scene. It was in Bamber Bridge, technically a satellite village of Preston. Haven't seen owt on the news yet - it's in a stretch where people often drink in small groups. Never had any trouble off them myself though.
> Have looked, nothing on the news yet. Hope it's nothing too serious.



/Off Topic/

Would that be on the Preston > Bamber Bridge cycleway using the old tramline? I used to ride that, nice alternative to riding the A6 into preston.

/On topic/


----------



## Christopher (14 Oct 2011)

hi wiggy
Yep. It is rather vegetated in places but much better than the A6. Recently the council have completed another track over the old East Lancs railway line over the Ribble - I often ride that as it's more interesting and less crowded than the tramway.

Update on yesterday's incident: it was a stabbing according to the Lancashire Evening Post. A man attempted to murder his ex-girlfriend. Ugh. She is in hospital but should pull through. He's been arrested.


----------



## MontyVeda (14 Oct 2011)

Christopher said:


> ...
> 
> Update on yesterday's incident: it was a stabbing according to the Lancashire Evening Post. A man attempted to murder his ex-girlfriend. Ugh. She is in hospital but should pull through. He's been arrested.



that's Preston for you... bloody southerners!


----------



## wiggydiggy (14 Oct 2011)

Christopher said:


> hi wiggy
> Yep. It is rather vegetated in places but much better than the A6. Recently the council have completed another track over the old East Lancs railway line over the Ribble - I often ride that as it's more interesting and less crowded than the tramway.
> 
> Update on yesterday's incident: it was a stabbing according to the Lancashire Evening Post. A man attempted to murder his ex-girlfriend. Ugh. She is in hospital but should pull through. He's been arrested.



Bloody hell 

That route is lovely and yes it does split doesnt it, the one thats improved was a railway. As a little ride you can follow that all the was to Old Ken Mill in Whittle-le-woods, it gets a bit grotty at the end of the tramway just after Bamber Bridge FC when you have to cylce through an industrial estate but your soon into Cuerdan Valley and can follow that all the way to Whittle.

Er anyway


----------



## Panter (14 Oct 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Never mind me guys, there's a wall over there I'm going to bang my head against for a while!






MontyVeda said:


> I think I'll join you



Room for another one?


----------



## Silver Fox (14 Oct 2011)

Panter said:


> Room for another one?




Excuse me lads, just squeezing in next to you


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (14 Oct 2011)

Silver Fox said:


> Excuse me lads, just squeezing in next to you



Good , the more people there are over "there" banging their heads, the less are cheering on the police whilst they randomly stop cyclists,motorists,teenagers,blacks,jews,people they don't like the look of, people who have been lippy in the past, people whose politics the Daily Wail doesn't like ....( Pick your favourite)


First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionist,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jew,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
​Pastor Niemoller


If the police want to target cycle crime they need to target the criminals, not randomly stop innocent people.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (14 Oct 2011)

Silver Fox said:


> Care to share what happened.




I would suggest the answer to that should be the same one I proposed giving to Preston police...


----------



## MissTillyFlop (14 Oct 2011)

This could be bad if I'm in an episode, as I probably ask them to prove that the car was theirs and try and drive it away if they couldn't


----------



## Cubist (14 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Good , the more people there are over "there" banging their heads, the less are cheering on the police whilst they randomly stop cyclists,motorists,teenagers,blacks,jews,people they don't like the look of, people who have been lippy in the past, people whose politics the Daily Wail doesn't like ....( Pick your favourite)
> 
> 
> First they came for the communists,
> ...



Way to go Little Yellow Brompton, have you written to the Home Secretary and shared this utter gem?? Ever since 1850 or so the police have got it completely wrong,harassing people like you, when they could have been simply targeting all the people who are criminals. 

One small question. 

How can the police tell who is a criminal, and who is Little Yellow Brompton et al without stopping them and asking them to account for themselves? ?


----------



## Cubist (14 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> I would suggest the answer to that should be the same one I proposed giving to Preston police...



What? From Bridgend? On a folder? 

You stay where you are love, Preston can manage without you.


----------



## User482 (14 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> Way to go Little Yellow Brompton, have you written to the Home Secretary and shared this utter gem?? Ever since 1850 or so the police have got it completely wrong,harassing people like you, when they could have been simply targeting all the people who are criminals.
> 
> One small question.
> 
> How can the police tell who is a criminal, and who is Little Yellow Brompton et al without stopping them and asking them to account for themselves? ?



Quite obviously, the police haven't got it completely wrong. Nor have they got it completely right, as the targetting of young black men showed.

The point is that this policy is open to abuse, intentional or otherwise.


----------



## Dan_h (14 Oct 2011)

I really don't mind if the police want to ask me questions about my bike, bikes are one of my favourite things to talk about!! Also I would be quite pleased if my bike got nicked and they randomly stopped the thief!


----------



## Cubist (14 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> Quite obviously, the police haven't got it completely wrong. Nor have they got it completely right, as the targetting of young black men showed.
> 
> The point is that this policy is open to abuse, intentional or otherwise.



Agreed, every "policy" is open to abuse. There are however checks and balances in place as well as a transparent and accountable complaints system. In our force for example we hold a scrutiny panel every quarter where our Stop and Search performance is held under intense scrutiny by a representative lay panel. 

The targeting of black men is not the most current of examples though, and is difficult to equate with an initiative to reduce the theft of pedal cycles during daylight hours, surely? 

Things have moved on massively over the last couple of decades. Every single officer I know, without exception, winces at the way "sus" was used. It led to massive amounts of distrust in the service, and a legacy which, apparently, is taking some shaking off. Some people make an awful lot of noise about how terrible the police are, and how badly they behave. I have spent twenty five years of my working life trying to redress that balance, and on the whole I am much prouder of what we do and how we do it now, than I was in 1987.


----------



## PK99 (14 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> Way to go Little Yellow Brompton, have you written to the Home Secretary and shared this utter gem?? Ever since 1850 or so the police have got it completely wrong,harassing people like you, when they could have been simply targeting all the people who are criminals.
> 
> One small question.
> 
> How can the police tell who is a criminal, and who is Little Yellow Brompton et al without stopping them and asking them to account for themselves? ?




Tut, tut Cubist! You are missing the point!

We are cyclists and can therefore, by defintion, do no wrong. We have every right to demand that the police crack down on cycle crime (500,000 bikes stolen each year in the UK) without ever stopping any of us who have not stolen bikes to ask a few probing questions. We have every right to demand that the police develop psychic powers to be able to spot the criminal POB with 100% accuracy every time.

Personally, if some scrote is seen on my £2,500 titanium beauty, I'd very much like a plod to have a word or two and if the scrote clearly knows nothing about the bike they are riding to make a few other pertinent enquiries. If I'm stopped I'l happily "prove" ownership by telling Plod what size tyres, what gearing and whose makers label appears on the hand built wheels.


----------



## Cubist (14 Oct 2011)

PK99 said:


> Tut, tut Cubist! You are missing the point!
> 
> We are cyclists and can therefore, by defintion, do no wrong. We have every right to demand that the police crack down on cycle crime (500,000 bikes stolen each year in the UK) without ever stopping any of us who have not stolen bikes to ask a few probing questions. We have every right to demand that the police develop psychic powers to be able to spot the criminal POB with 100% accuracy every time.
> 
> Personally, if some scrote is seen on my £2,500 titanium beauty, I'd very much like a plod to have a word or two and if the scrote clearly knows nothing about the bike they are riding to make a few other pertinent enquiries. If I'm stopped I'l happily "prove" ownership by telling Plod what size tyres, what gearing and whose makers label appears on the hand built wheels.



Yep, good point.

Any room over there on the wall? I'm wearing my Thudguard.


----------



## User482 (14 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> Agreed, every "policy" is open to abuse. There are however checks and balances in place as well as a transparent and accountable complaints system. In our force for example we hold a scrutiny panel every quarter where our Stop and Search performance is held under intense scrutiny by a representative lay panel.
> 
> The targeting of black men is not the most current of examples though, and is difficult to equate with an initiative to reduce the theft of pedal cycles during daylight hours, surely?
> 
> Things have moved on massively over the last couple of decades. Every single officer I know, without exception, winces at the way "sus" was used. It led to massive amounts of distrust in the service, and a legacy which, apparently, is taking some shaking off. Some people make an awful lot of noise about how terrible the police are, and how badly they behave. I have spent twenty five years of my working life trying to redress that balance, and on the whole I am much prouder of what we do and how we do it now, than I was in 1987.



It's not so long ago that the Met was described as institutionally racist. So I'm less relaxed than you about discrimination in the force, though I accept fully that the police are making a considerable effort to improve.

Regarding the abuse of policies - some are more open to it than others. That is my concern with this particular one. For example, my bikes were all hand built by me, using parts from a variety of sources for which I have no receipts. Two of my frames have had resprays, filling in the frame number. I have also been known to pop to the shops, wearing a hoody and no helmet.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (14 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> Way to go Little Yellow Brompton, have you written to the Home Secretary and shared this utter gem?? Ever since 1850 or so the police have got it completely wrong,harassing people like you, when they could have been simply targeting all the people who are criminals.
> 
> One small question.
> 
> How can the police tell who is a criminal, and who is Little Yellow Brompton et al without stopping them and asking them to account for themselves? ?




I have a good idea, why don't we all have numbers tattoed on our forearms, or can see you see a problem with that ?


----------



## MacB (14 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> It's not so long ago that the Met was described as institutionally racist. So I'm less relaxed than you about discrimination in the force, though I accept fully that the police are making a considerable effort to improve.
> 
> *Regarding the abuse of policies - some are more open to it than others*. That is my concern with this particular one. For example, my bikes were all hand built by me, using parts from a variety of sources for which I have no receipts. Two of my frames have had resprays, filling in the frame number. I have also been known to pop to the shops, wearing a hoody and no helmet.



I agree but my gut feel, from what I've been reading, is that your ability to describe your ride would be more than ample to offset any risk of confiscation. Yes there is the risk that you have a 'personality clash' with an officer and they become rather over zealous...but is it a big risk?


----------



## User482 (14 Oct 2011)

MacB said:


> I agree but my gut feel, from what I've been reading, is that your ability to describe your ride would be more than ample to offset any risk of confiscation. Yes there is the risk that you have a 'personality clash' with an officer and they become rather over zealous...but is it a big risk?




Yes, yes, but all you need is one police officer rather less fair-minded than Cubist, and we have a problem. Remember that they only need a "reasonable suspicion" which would be a pretty good cover for discriminatory or over-zealous behaviour.


----------



## wiggydiggy (14 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Good , the more people there are over "there" banging their heads, the less are cheering on the police whilst they randomly stop cyclists,motorists,teenagers,blacks,jews,people they don't like the look of, people who have been lippy in the past, people whose politics the Daily Wail doesn't like ....( Pick your favourite)
> 
> 
> First they came for the communists,
> ...



Did you just do that? Did you just compare the words and feelings of a man who grew up in pre WWII Nazi Germany and who was talking about purges against groups of people and the lack of action by people as these went on?

Sweet baby jesus and the little children you're not suggesting that as cyclists we are being persecuted and need to actually flee the country?

Look I'm a leftie, I'd go as far to say I'm a socialist but I cant agree with you here. If the issue was the police were grabbing cyclist off the streets and taking them for processing to determine ownership then fine, that passage is relevent.

But being stopped and asked a couple questions, fine.

Before you go any further, answer me this:

If you want the police to actually be able to solve crime, how do you expect them to do that without actually speaking to people?


----------



## MacB (14 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> Yes, yes, but all you need is one police officer rather less fair-minded than Cubist, and we have a problem. Remember that they only need a "reasonable suspicion" which would be a pretty good cover for discriminatory or over-zealous behaviour.



As I said I'm in two minds but I don't see that further 'them and us' style reinforcement is ever going to help. I think there needs to be give and take both ways and some serious efforts around reintegrating the police with the rest of society. Do we need a multiple tier force like they have in the US? National for the big stuff, regional and then local forces run by elected 'sheriffs'?


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (14 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> One small question.
> 
> How can the police tell who is a criminal, and who is Little Yellow Brompton et al without stopping them and asking them to account for themselves? ?



Hmm

That does sound a bit like the more succinct

_"Papieren, Bitte!"_


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (14 Oct 2011)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Hmm
> 
> That does sound a bit like the more succinct
> 
> _"Papieren, Bitte!"_




And eventually even the "please" will disapear! :-(


----------



## wiggydiggy (14 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> And eventually even the "please" will disapear! :-(



Just make sure when they wish you luck on your way you dont answer in english 

Seriously come on LYB, stop being such a cynical old goat. The mistakes of the past will not be allowed to be repeated.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (14 Oct 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> Did you just do that? Did you just compare the words and feelings of a man who grew up in pre WWII Nazi Germany and who was talking about purges against groups of people and the lack of action by people as these went on?
> 
> Sweet baby jesus and the little children you're not suggesting that as cyclists we are being persecuted and need to actually flee the country?
> 
> ...




The problem isn't of police speaking to people, it is one of the police randomly detaining people, and asking them to account for their property , under threat of confirscation of their property if the police are not satisfied with the answers. Take out the random, the insistance on accounting and the confirscation and I would have no problem.Of course, talking to every cyclist , allowing them not to answer and not threatening them wouldn't be quite as effective...


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (14 Oct 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> Just make sure when they wish you luck on your way you dont answer in english
> 
> Seriously come on LYB, stop being such a cynical old goat. The mistakes of the past will not be allowed to be repeated.




What's the price of Liberty?


BTW if you do answer in English, when you leg it, don't shimmy left/right in the street!


----------



## Zoiders (14 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> What's the price of Liberty?
> 
> 
> BTW if you do answer in English, when you leg it, don't shimmy left/right in the street!


I think your argument is "how dare you suspect me as I am a middle class graduate"

If you fitted a description of a suspect becuase of your manner of dress, height and build then it's perfectly reasonable for you to be stopped and asked a few questions - equating that however with the old sus laws is shrill posturing and fairly offensive to those who really did suffer under them.


----------



## Nigeyy (14 Oct 2011)

No... god no. Please no.



MacB said:


> Do we need a multiple tier force like they have in the US? National for the big stuff, regional and then local forces run by elected 'sheriffs'?


----------



## Cubist (14 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> Yes, yes, but all you need is one police officer rather less fair-minded than Cubist, and we have a problem. Remember that they only need a "reasonable suspicion" which would be a pretty good cover for discriminatory or over-zealous behaviour.



I'm flattered User482, but trust me I'm NOT atypical!!!

What I'm struggling with here is the (almost) assumption that an over zealous cop will want to use this initiative to arrest someone who fails to account for his bike, and then confiscate it. 

Let's just try and put a scenario together,

"Hello sir, can I just ask you a question or two about your funny little yellow folding bicycle?"

"F*ck you and the horse you rode in on."

"Is it your bike sir?"

"It was when I was climbing off your Mother, now leave me alone you oppressive agent of the state you."

"Would you mind changing down a gear Sir, I'm struggling to keep up with you what with all this safety equipment I'm wearing."


Followed by arrest and impounding of bicycle because the officer "suspects it to be stolen."

The scene now moves to the custody suite at Toytown police station where the arresting officer explains to the custody officer that the person he is holding was locked up because he thought the bike might be stolen. 

"And is it? Have you found any reports of stolen yellow folders?"

"No Sarge"

"In that case let him go, and dust him down while you're at it."


----------



## Cubist (14 Oct 2011)

In case anyone is wondering, part of the point I'm trying to make is that in any such situation a colleague or supervisor is quickly going to intervene and tell the over zealous officer to stop being a c*nt. 

Making arrests for their own sake, only to have them thrown out by the custody officer, and the arrestee busy making a claim for false imprisonment via the civil claims department does not score any brownie points. The days of arrest to hit targets left us some 5 years ago.


----------



## User482 (14 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> I'm flattered User482, but trust me I'm NOT atypical!!!



Um, if you'd bothered to read my posts properly, you'd know that I hadn't argued otherwise. Surely you must admit that there are one or two police officers with questionnable attitudes? In which case, it doesn't take much imagination to envisage a scenario in whicg this policy could be abused.

That's all I'm saying.


----------



## PK99 (14 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> Um, if you'd bothered to read my posts properly, you'd know that I hadn't argued otherwise.* Surely you must admit that there are one or two police officers with questionnable attitudes? In which case, it doesn't take much imagination to envisage a scenario in whicg this policy could be abused.*
> 
> That's all I'm saying.



that is an argument for never putting any police on the streets ever!


----------



## Silver Fox (14 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> Um, if you'd bothered to read my posts properly, you'd know that I hadn't argued otherwise. Surely you must admit that there are one or two police officers with questionnable attitudes? In which case, it doesn't take much imagination to envisage a scenario in whicg this policy could be abused.
> 
> That's all I'm saying.



Good and bad in all walks of life User482, even if it's only a tiny minority. The police do more than the public realise to root out the bad apples, infact they can be quite ruthless with their own.


----------



## MontyVeda (14 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> ... Surely you must admit that there are one or two *police officers with questionable attitudes*? In which case, it doesn't take much imagination to envisage a scenario in which this policy could be abused.
> 
> That's all I'm saying.



This is true, however there's a lot of people in general with questionable attitudes, which is why we have a police force service in the first place.


----------



## User482 (14 Oct 2011)

PK99 said:


> that is an argument for never putting any police on the streets ever!



Only if you're an idiot.


----------



## User482 (14 Oct 2011)

Silver Fox said:


> Good and bad in all walks of life User482, even if it's only a tiny minority. The police do more than the public realise to root out the bad apples, infact they can be quite ruthless with their own.




I'm sure they do. But I'm not sure that it's a good idea to introduce any policy that gives those bad apples more freedom to be bad apples.

I feel conflicted about this initiative, as in general I would applaud any police effort to reduce cycle thefts.


----------



## Cubist (14 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> I'm sure they do. But I'm not sure that it's a good idea to introduce any policy that gives those bad apples more freedom to be bad apples.
> 
> I feel conflicted about this initiative, as in general I would applaud any police effort to reduce cycle thefts.



But, and I hope you will be reassured by this, this is an initiative, not a policy. 

The news is that cops are stopping cyclists and checking to make sure they aren't on stolen bikes.

The legal premises are in place to allow them to do this. 

The PACE Act 1984 allows officers to take various steps within the law to prevent and detect crime, and this sort of initiative MUST comply with legislation. The Force in question will also have all sorts of policies which ensure that the way in which PACE is applied and delivered, including various checks and scrutiny stages, is correct and controlled. 

What appears to make you suspicious about this (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that were you to be asked what make your bike is, you wouldn't be able to explain to a non-cyclist cop that you built it yourself, and haven't got receipts etc proving its provenance. Regardless of this fact, by explaining this to any officer on the initiative you will immediately have allayed any suspicions. 

Cops will *genuinely *be able to tell from the way you interact with them whether or not you are a villain, and you have nothing to fear.

No amount of typing will reassure Little Yellow Brompton, and I'm genuinely sorry he feels the way he does about policing in the UK. He may however be reassured that even if he fails to interact with the police in a way which Joe Average does, there is in fact no law in the land to prevent people from acting as they choose. The results will be messy and at times uncomfortable (on both sides) but the truth will prevail and he will remain a free person.


----------



## User482 (14 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> But, and I hope you will be reassured by this, this is an initiative, not a policy.
> 
> The news is that cops are stopping cyclists and checking to make sure they aren't on stolen bikes.
> 
> ...



LYB's quote from Niemoller was in poor taste, but I think that there was an underlying kernel of truth in what he/ she said. It's a pity that the hyperbole prevented a rational discussion.

I think all we can do with this is see how it works out.


----------



## MontyVeda (14 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> ...
> 
> It's a pity that the hyperbole prevented a rational discussion.
> 
> ...




What!?!? Are you trying to say that simply pointing an incident where an innocent civilian was pulled off his bike by a heavy handed and corrupt copper, thrown against a wall before the copper demanded he answer twenty questions about his bike is somehow irrational !!!


----------



## chillyuk (14 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> Cops will *genuinely *be able to tell from the way you interact with them whether or not you are a villain, and you have nothing to fear.



I did time many years ago, so must be classed as a villain regardless of 40+ years completely straight. Although my bikes are legal, going by your logic I DO have reason to fear.


----------



## MontyVeda (14 Oct 2011)

chillyuk said:


> I did time many years ago, so must be classed as a villain regardless of 40+ years completely straight. Although my bikes are legal, going by your logic I DO have reason to fear.



I think you're confusing 'are' with 'were'... there is a big difference.


----------



## Cubist (14 Oct 2011)

chillyuk said:


> I did time many years ago, so must be classed as a villain regardless of 40+ years completely straight. Although my bikes are legal, going by your logic I DO have reason to fear.



If tortuous logic for the sake of debate is your thing, then yes, I'm talking out of my arse.


----------



## Cubist (14 Oct 2011)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Hmm
> 
> That does sound a bit like the more succinct
> 
> _"Papieren, Bitte!"_



Out of context I can see your point. Back in the context of the Preston initiative it is pretty wide of the mark!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (14 Oct 2011)

Zoiders said:


> I think your argument is "how dare you suspect me as I am a middle class graduate"
> 
> If you fitted a description of a suspect becuase of your manner of dress, height and build then it's perfectly reasonable for you to be stopped and asked a few questions - equating that however with the old sus laws is shrill posturing and fairly offensive to those who really did suffer under them.



No my argument is " I have done nothing wrong, you have no reason to think I have, I don't need to have my time wasted by your fishing trip"

We are not talking about anyone fitting a description , the report is of cyclists being randomly stopped.


----------



## Cubist (14 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> No my argument is " I have done nothing wrong, you have no reason to think I have, I don't need to have my time wasted by your fishing trip"
> 
> We are not talking about anyone fitting a description , the report is of cyclists being randomly stopped.



Little Yellow Brompton

Would it help you to know that failing to stop at the direction of a constable is an offence? It matters not at this stage why the officer chooses to stop you, s/he is empowered by legislation to do so. Random therefore is immaterial. Whether you then choose to engage in a discussion on the ownership of your bike is up to you. There are no powers to force you to speak. 

Here's the wording from the 1988 RTA






*163Power of police to stop vehicles*
http://(1)​A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

http://(2)​A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

http://(3)​If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence


----------



## Nortones2 (14 Oct 2011)

The word random does not appear in the initial report. The stop requirement appears to be targeted at the sore thumbs any sentient person might be suspicious of: "if an officer believes that the bike could be stolen, Lancashire Police told us. For instance, a man who is riding a woman’s bike or a child’s bike will be stopped as that instantly rouses suspicion." In Preston the city centre and certain estates are factually known as thieves kitchens. Not too hard to spot the ebb and flow of the light, but grubby, fingered.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (14 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> Little Yellow Brompton
> 
> Would it help you to know that failing to stop at the direction of a constable is an offence? It matters not at this stage why the officer chooses to stop you, s/he is empowered by legislation to do so. Random therefore is immaterial. Whether you then choose to engage in a discussion on the ownership of your bike is up to you. There are no powers to force you to speak.
> 
> ...




Thank you very much, you illustrate the problem of mission creep perfectly...

Can't use the first bit of legislation to get what you want, cast around until you find another... 

If all else fails fall back on "breach of the peace" or maybe even the new catch all "terrorism" 

*http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/10/10/police-threatened-me-for-taking-pictures-of-daughter-in-shopping-centre-dad-claims-86908-23478831/*

Remind me again, why shouldn't I be worried about powers being misused?


----------



## Cubist (14 Oct 2011)

Mission creep? How? I'm simply pointing out that your assertion that you would not stop for the police under these circumstances as being fraught with danger. You run a real risk of a court summons. 

What I can't understand is your phrase "Get what you want" What this initiative sets out to do is to prevent and detect the theft of bicycles. You have turned it into an exemplar of some mission to "get what they want" which appears to be to make life as difficult as possible for Little Yellow Brompton and co. 

Can you explain succinctly exactly what that mission is? What are the police trying to achieve that requires them to pretend to be after stolen bikes, but clearly have some hidden agenda which you are clear on, but I , sadly, am not? 

So,please, for the benefit of all, what exactly do the police want?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> Mission creep? How? I'm simply pointing out that your assertion that you would not stop for the police under these circumstances as being fraught with danger. You run a real risk of a court summons.
> 
> What I can't understand is your phrase "Get what you want" What this initiative sets out to do is to prevent and detect the theft of bicycles. You have turned it into an exemplar of some mission to "get what they want" which appears to be to make life as difficult as possible for Little Yellow Brompton and co.
> 
> ...



It seems they want cyclists to stop, and answer questions, on pain of having their bikes confiscated.


----------



## Cubist (15 Oct 2011)

To what purpose? 
What questions? 
Why would they want to confiscate bikes? 

They have stated quite clearly that they want to prevent and detect thefts. Interrogating innocent people and confiscating their bicycles as a hidden agenda is pretty strange behaviour.

Why would they want to do that?


----------



## Cubist (15 Oct 2011)

haven't they got anything better to do?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> To what purpose?
> What questions?
> Why would they want to confiscate bikes?
> 
> ...



I'm glad you are now starting to question.


----------



## GFamily (15 Oct 2011)

diapason said:


> Hmmm - how to you 'prove' ownership of a bike, unless you've bought it from a bike shop and have kept the receipt. I built my bike up from bits, and would be hard pushed to find any documentary evidence now.



I've got a cable combination lock on mine, so I can prove that the lock is mine!


----------



## Crankarm (15 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> To what purpose?
> What questions?
> Why would they want to confiscate bikes?
> 
> ...




So if you are stopped by plod on your bike, but because you are unable to establish to the satisfaction of the cop that your bike is yours, he seizes it and takes it away from you. Surely this is theft of your property? There appears to be a fine line between a copper thinking he or she is acting within the law and acting outside it thus becoming a villian themselves. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between cops and robbers. And if you still couldn't satisfy the plods your bike was yours then they would keep it and auction it off to raise much needed cash. I can see where this initiative is going .............

Andy Hayman top cop : "I can't believe you just asked me that."

Of course you could just ride off as it is unlikely any cop would actually catch you as most are pretty lardy and unfit due to all the pies and greasey fry ups they eat. And if it became ugly I am sure a truncheon would be no match for a D-lock ....... 

I would hope the plods would have a list of bikes with frame numbers and other pertinent features that had been reported stolen in the area so if your bike did not match these then they would clearly be acting unlawfully by removing your bike from your possession.

I think the plods using bait or dummy bikes is a far better method of catching bike thieves in areas where bike theft is a problem rather than antagonising the law abiding majority of cyclists.


----------



## Cubist (15 Oct 2011)

It is very clear Crankers that you and LYB have a particularly jaded view of the police. I have already said I am genuinely sorry, but I really don't know any better how to reassure you that: 

THE POLICE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN CONFISCATING YOUR BIKE.


----------



## Cubist (15 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> I'm glad you are now starting to question.



Indeed. My question was to you. You have not answered it, merely engaged in what appears to be paranoid rhetoric

I'll make it clear

"Why do you think the police want to confiscate your bike?"


----------



## Chris-H (15 Oct 2011)

Those that hark on about their rights being violated etc for being randomley stopped and questioned need to remember one thing,while in the 40's that kind of behaviour by the police would've been frowned upon by most of the population due to a low crime rate these days with the amount of rising crime in all areas the police have a much harder task at tackling it.Bicycles are also used to commit crime,especially in inner cities where they make a much better scource of getaway vehicle from muggings.Crime has increased no end,terrorism,burgularys,robberys etc etc how do the police know your innocent until they've spoken to you?Its a sad situatuation our country finds itself in but its a fact,crime is at an all time high and affects EVERYONE,to the point of affecting you in the form of being asked a few questions while your out on your bike.Dont blame the police.....blame the theiving,murdering,bombing scum that has brought this country down so much.


----------



## Peter88 (15 Oct 2011)

Greater Manchester Police have also been running this operation for the last month or so. I posted a couple of weeks ago that a friend had 5 bikes stolen, he now has 2 of those bikes back because GMP recovered them using this tactic.


----------



## Norm (15 Oct 2011)

To the policemen on here and those organising these initiatives, thanks!  

Most cyclists, I'm sure, will take more note of their own thoughts and experiences, and from posts like Peter88's above, than the ramblings of the paranoid few.


----------



## MontyVeda (15 Oct 2011)

what I've learnt from this thread is that some people choose to live in a police state whilst the rest of us happily don't.


----------



## CopperCyclist (15 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> I think the plods using bait or dummy bikes is a far better method of catching bike thieves in areas where bike theft is a problem rather than antagonising the law abiding majority of cyclists.



I'm coming away from the wall quickly to make a point regarding this, I'm hoping I don't lose my space there as its filling in fast.

Dummy 'bait' bikes sounds a great idea doesn't it. Someone else mentioned it earlier too, with a sensible suggestion of a GPS tracker. Problem is, this would count as a covert operation. We have to take into account the 'human rights' of gaining personal information of the thief by sneakily watching him in this way, and therefore it's not an operation you can just set up. It would require applications and authorisations by a Superintendant, or possibly even a Chief Constable depending on exactly what tech you were going to use. The application is lengthy and difficult to complete. You'd have to be able to show that the officer running the observation was specially trained, which few of us are.

I'll leave you all to form your own conclusions on why we are in the situation where a relatively simple and effective operation like a bait bike is so difficult to set up.

Now I'm going back to banging my head against that wall - I've ordered pies and a greasy fry up to be delivered there and don't want to miss it.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

Chris-H said:


> Those that hark on about their rights being violated etc for being randomley stopped and questioned need to remember one thing,while in the 40's that kind of behaviour by the police would've been frowned upon by most of the population due to a low crime rate these days with the amount of rising crime in all areas the police have a much harder task at tackling it.Bicycles are also used to commit crime,especially in inner cities where they make a much better scource of getaway vehicle from muggings.Crime has increased no end,terrorism,burgularys,robberys etc etc how do the police know your innocent until they've spoken to you?Its a sad situatuation our country finds itself in but its a fact,crime is at an all time high and affects EVERYONE,to the point of affecting you in the form of being asked a few questions while your out on your bike.Dont blame the police.....blame the theiving,murdering,bombing scum that has brought this country down so much.



I think you might be reading the Daily Wail to often!

"BCS interviews showed that the risk of being a victim of crime in the year ending September 2010
was 21.4 per cent. This level of risk of being a victim of crime remains at a 30-year low."


Home Office Statistical Bulletin 02/11 Crime in England and Wales: Quarterly Update to September 2010


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> Indeed. My question was to you. You have not answered it, merely engaged in what appears to be paranoid rhetoric
> 
> I'll make it clear
> 
> "Why do you think the police want to confiscate your bike?"



They don't, they just need to threat of doing so to force questions to be answered.


----------



## MontyVeda (15 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> They don't, they just need to threat of doing so to force questions to be answered.



very silly... back to the wall for me.


----------



## vickster (15 Oct 2011)

As someone who has just had a BikeRegister marked bike stolen, I'd be more than happy for the tea-leaf to be stopped and the bike checked over  Don't expect the bike to show up otherwise


----------



## Chris-H (15 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> I think you might be reading the Daily Wail to often!
> 
> "BCS interviews showed that the risk of being a victim of crime in the year ending September 2010
> was 21.4 per cent. This level of risk of being a victim of crime remains at a 30-year low."
> ...


Not in the slightest,my point was not that we are all victims of crime but more that we all have to bear the cost of crime so to speak and part of that "cost" is to surely aid the police when and where we can without moaning about it.


----------



## Cubist (15 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> They don't, they just need to threat of doing so to force questions to be answered.



I have reached a point where I don't believe any further debate is beneficial. I'm genuinely sorry you fear the police and tactics to the degree that you do. I don't think anything I type on here will change that. I'm sorry.


----------



## Crankarm (15 Oct 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> I'm coming away from the wall quickly to make a point regarding this, I'm hoping I don't lose my space there as its filling in fast.
> 
> Dummy 'bait' bikes sounds a great idea doesn't it. Someone else mentioned it earlier too, with a sensible suggestion of a GPS tracker. Problem is, this would count as a covert operation. We have to take into account the 'human rights' of gaining personal information of the thief by sneakily watching him in this way, and therefore it's not an operation you can just set up. It would require applications and authorisations by a Superintendant, or possibly even a Chief Constable depending on exactly what tech you were going to use. The application is lengthy and difficult to complete. You'd have to be able to show that the officer running the observation was specially trained, which few of us are.
> 
> ...




So to avoid infringing the 'uman rights of bike thieves and other "undesireables" the police prefer the premise that all cyclists are potential bike thieves and therefore treat them as such unless they can prove other wise. A not so inconsequential reversal of the legal principal operated for hundreds of years that one is assumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law which goes for bike thieves as well. Nice to know how the police view the general public and more specificly cyclists. I object to being viewed by the police as a potential bike thief simply for going about my lawful business. If I was unable to establish to "their satisfaction" that I owned my bike or any other property, then having it confiscated and me charged with theft I would feel extremely aggrieved. One cannot steal one's own property. I would love there to be a test case because the fuzz had been over officious and the CPS just plain stupid just so any prosecution brought about by their daft initiative could be laughed out of court. It is one thing catching criminals in the act which I am all for, but to harass the rest of us going about our lawful buisness because plods don't have the wit to catch criminals is a step too far IMHO. What if bike thieves get wise and start wearing cycling clothing - lycra or Pro Team kit will they start confiscating bikes from pretty much all cyclists and throwing riders in the their cells who couldn't establish they had legal title to their bikes? How about only targetting cyclists who aren't wearing a helmet and aren't wearing hi viz yellow?

When my Brompton was stolen the police didn't want to know. They weren't interested. It took endless calls to even get a crime number out of them, but fortunately dealing with my insurers was a doddle compared to the fuzz. My premium went up slightly though :~(. 

I remember an initiative launched by the MET last year or the year before in the wake of the terrorist threat. It was ecouraging people to report neighbours or properties in their communities where the curtains were always drawn and where the occupants were considered secretive or came and went from the property at strange times ....... so they must be terrorists. I think this "initiative" was quickly withdrawn.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> I have reached a point where I don't believe any further debate is beneficial. I'm genuinely sorry you fear the police and tactics to the degree that you do. I don't think anything I type on here will change that. I'm sorry.



I had come to that conclusion a long time ago, but thank you for your time spent trying to reassure me.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> So to avoid infringing the 'uman rights of bike thieves and other "undesireables" the police prefer the premise that all cyclists are potential bike thieves and therefore treat them as such unless they can prove other wise. A not so inconsequential reversal of the legal principal operated for hundreds of years that one is assumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law which goes for bike thieves as well. Nice to know how the police view the general public and more specificly cyclists. I object to being viewed by the police as a potential bike thief simply for going about my lawful business.



Wot 'E said!


----------



## snorri (15 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> the police prefer the premise that all cyclists are potential bike thieves and therefore treat them as such unless they can prove other wise.


With an opening line like that, I doubt the rest of your post is worth reading. Unless you can explain what has led to that view?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

Chris-H said:


> Not in the slightest,my point was not that we are all victims of crime but more that we all have to bear the cost of crime so to speak and part of that "cost" is to surely aid the police when and where we can without moaning about it.



You stated that crime was at an all time high! It isn't. As for a presumed duty to help the police, I expect very little from them ( and save myself disaponintment) and and in return don't feel much need to aid them.


----------



## Crankarm (15 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> Indeed. My question was to you. You have not answered it, merely engaged in what appears to be paranoid rhetoric
> 
> I'll make it clear
> 
> "Why do you think the police want to confiscate your bike?"



I refer you to my above points and the *presumption* by the police that unless some one in possession of a bike can establish that they are the legal owner of it then the bicycle must be stolen, either by the person riding it, or the rider has been handling stolen goods.

If the police are just on a chancer then they should bog off. However, if they have specific information that a Trek road bike, Madone 5.2, blue, size medium, frame number xxxxxx with blue handle bar tape, SPD pedals, scratch to the top tube, red and black tyres has been reported stolen and you are unfortunately riding it, then this would seem to me to be a reasonable reason for stopping the rider and requesting them to produce evidence that they genuinely owned the bike and how they came by it.

But to simply dream up their own criteria of what looks suspicious and whether some one looks like a bike thief or is riding a stolen bike is not the way forward. the police have fallen into this trap many times before where their prejudices have led to false allegations, false imprisonment or miscarriages of justice.


----------



## Norm (15 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> I refer you to my above points and the *presumption* by the police that unless some one in possession of a bike can establish that they are the legal owner of it then the bicycle must be stolen, either by the person riding it, or the rider has been handling stolen goods.


 However, as your "above points" had no basis in fact, repeating them gives them even less credibility.



Crankarm said:


> But to simply dream up their own criteria of what looks suspicious and whether some one looks like a bike thief or is riding a stolen bike is not the way forward. the police have fallen into this trap many times before where their prejudices have led to false allegations, false imprisonment or miscarriages of justice.


 Hmm... "dreaming up your own criteria" seems to be an appropriate comment from someone who considers that the police have approached this with a presumption of guilt.


----------



## Mugshot (15 Oct 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> what I've learnt from this thread is that some people choose to live in a police state whilst the rest of us happily don't.



Having read through this thread opened mouthed ^^^^This sums it up beautifully for me, thank you Monty.

However, despite the vitriol flowing so freely through this thread I was most distrurbed and disappointed by CopperCyclists' comment 



CopperCyclist said:


> I've ordered pies and a greasy fry up to be delivered there and don't want to miss it.



I thought you only ate doughnuts


----------



## GFamily (15 Oct 2011)

diapason said:


> Hmmm - how to you 'prove' ownership of a bike, unless you've bought it from a bike shop and have kept the receipt. I built my bike up from bits, and would be hard pushed to find any documentary evidence now.



I can undo the combination lock on mine - which is more than anyone else claiming ownership would be able to do.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> However, as your "above points" had no basis in fact, repeating them gives them even less credibility.
> 
> Hmm... "dreaming up your own criteria" seems to be an appropriate comment from someone who considers that the police have approached this with a presumption of guilt.



Unfortunately I think that's an occupational hazard, forced upon the police by the people they meet. Don't forget that the police get to meet and deal with the scum that the rest of us stay well clear of ,after repeated and prolonged exposure to that sort of influence, it's no wonder they start to get jaded.


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

I would like to see total road blocks like they do in France where all vehicles are stopped and the drivers checked for everything from insurance to drink, now I am sure many cyclists would like that also.


----------



## Norm (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576708"] Is there a similar initiative to 'prevent car crime'? Numptys. [/quote] Yes, there are quite a few of them. I've been stopped a couple of times in such checks, although the last was, admittedly, with the accompaniment of tanks and all sorts as it was when there were allegations of a terrorist missile strike at Heathrow. 

Anyway, of more general relevance, such "similar initiatives" include ANPR. Although I wonder if some would suggest covering their number plates rather than being checked.


----------



## Chris-H (15 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> When my Brompton was stolen the police didn't want to know. They weren't interested. It took endless calls to even get a crime number out of them, but fortunately dealing with my insurers was a doddle compared to the fuzz. My premium went up slightly though :~(.
> 
> Without getting drawn into an argument here and i respect your views but if the Police had taken the initiative earlier to stop check cyclists without fear of us all screaming persecutation then maybe,just maybe they might've stopped the scum that stole your bike and returned it to you and your premiums would'nt have risen.Would you then have in all honesty had the same opinion you have now about stop checks?
> .


----------



## diapason (15 Oct 2011)

It could be argued that if the police had actually been patrolling the streets (rather than hassling cyclists on the road - the majority of whom were almost certainly innocent) then Crankarm's bike might not have been nicked in the first place. Of course, the police have to tread a fine line between making genuine enquiries and 'hassling' the public, but _initiatives_ like this do raise questions of civil liberties and human rights.


----------



## User269 (15 Oct 2011)

GGB_Andrew said:


> And asking cyclists' for proof of ownership of bike as part of an operation to crackdown on bike crime.
> 
> We featured this story on our site yesterday and have had plenty of comments already. Would be great to know how you feel about what the Police are doing up in Preston
> 
> http://www.goinggoin...brings-results/




Sorry I've not read all the other posts on this .................... but I think this is harassment. Surely the psycho-social profile of your average bike thief isn't someone riding a bike to work??


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

screenman said:


> I would like to see total road blocks like they do in France where all vehicles are stopped and the drivers checked for everything from insurance to drink, now I am sure many cyclists would like that also.



France is thataway>>>>>>>>>>>!


If you like the way Les Flics work please feel free to emigrate.
I for one, as a cyclist, pedestrain or motorvehicle "pilot" would not like to see this idea imported. The ends do not justify the means!


----------



## doog (15 Oct 2011)

User269 said:


> Sorry I've not read all the other posts on this .................... but I think this is harassment. Surely the psycho-social profile of your average bike thief isn't someone riding a bike to work??



common sense says that they will be 'targeting' a certain member of the public and I am sure that is the case. I really dont think the average law abiding cyclist has anything to worry about. SO CHILL

You see, when your average scroat is stopped on a nice bike one of three things will happen . 

1. He drops it and runs.

2. He doesnt and cycles off.

3. When questioned he states he bought it off a mate....






Why do so many of you have some sort of agenda? If you get stopped, being proper cyclists you could prove within a few seconds that the bike was yours and on you go knowing you have done your bit for this initiative.

The problem will come when the likes of Brompton get all stroppy over his rights, the law etc and talks himself into getting his Brompton seized



. (Its a shame a police dog hander with a so called shoot machine couldnt get involved in that one)


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> common sense says that they will be 'targeting' a certain member of the public and I am sure that is the case. I really dont think the average law abiding cyclist has anything to worry about. SO CHILL
> 
> You see, when your average scroat is stopped on a nice bike one of three things will happen .
> 
> ...



It's not a "shoot machine" it's a turd dispenser.


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

LYB why do they not justify the means, take one unlicensed/drunk/drugged etc. driver off the road and it is certainly worth it.

I wonder how many of you anti stopping guys actually have any experience of the police.


----------



## doog (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576716"]
How?
[/quote]

by answering a few questions


----------



## Chris-H (15 Oct 2011)

diapason said:


> It could be argued that if the police had actually been patrolling the streets (rather than hassling cyclists on the road - the majority of whom were almost certainly innocent) then Crankarm's bike might not have been nicked in the first place. Of course, the police have to tread a fine line between making genuine enquiries and 'hassling' the public, but _initiatives_ like this do raise questions of civil liberties and human rights.


Then dont moan when ya bike gets nicked that the police are'nt doing their job.


----------



## Norm (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576716"]
How?
[/quote]That has already been covered further up the thread.


----------



## doog (15 Oct 2011)

Chris-H said:


> Then dont moan when ya bike gets nicked that the police are'nt doing their job.



its nuts isnt it...Police get blamed for trying to recover stolen bikes






(Im surprised no one has asked why they arent all out looking for all the murderers, rapists and paedo's )


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

screenman said:


> LYB why do they not justify the means, take one unlicensed/drunk/drugged etc. driver off the road and it is certainly worth it.
> 
> I wonder how many of you anti stopping guys actually have any experience of the police.



Why does the end not justify the means? Because if you want to use that argument you are only one step (and a very small one) from "might is right". 

By falling back on the "iff only one etc...... it's worth it" you have shown that you haven't really thought the argument through, should 60,000,000 people be held up on morning to find one " unlicensed/drunk/drugged etc. driver" ?

As for expereience of the police , I think the question should be the other way round, how many of the people thinking it's a wonderful idea have ever been questioned by the police? Those that think this is a wonderful idea seem to thinking with their nuts, focusing on the idea of scum being stopped by nice bobbies. In reality the world is filled with a mix from scum to innocent peeps and the police are filled with a mix from nice bobbies to hard arsed/ sarcastic/ corrupt /lazy slashed peaked control freaks. Those that think this is a wonderful idea seem to imagine it will be scum being stopped by nice bobbies, those that are saying "hang on a minute" are probably a bit more realistic and imagining that there are also going to be innocent peeps stopped by hard arsed/ sarcastic/ corrupt /lazy slashed peaked control freaks. I'm going to presume you are a nice peep and I hope you never get to meet a hard arsed/ sarcastic/ corrupt /lazy slashed peaked control freak, but if you do your perspective may change.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

Chris-H said:


> Then dont moan when ya bike gets nicked that the police are'nt doing their job.



I won't , I have low expectations.


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

I feel it would be worth 60,000,000 people being stopped for one nicked person, however you might not know this but a lot fewer than 60,000,000 people drive in the UK, I know when you are stuck in a traffic jam it might seem like it but in reality there are far fewer.

Now I am sure there maybe police officers that match your description, however maybe some people bring out the worst in others.

As for low expectations, please do enlighten us all with what you would expect of the police should do to meet your expectations.

Please I just read you signature, you are not a scoutmaster are you? mine was a right nasty vindictive power crazy sadist.


----------



## doog (15 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Why does the end not justify the means? Because if you want to use that argument you are only one step (and a very small one) from "might is right".
> 
> By falling back on the "iff only one etc...... it's worth it" you have shown that you haven't really thought the argument through, should 60,000,000 people be held up on morning to find one " unlicensed/drunk/drugged etc. driver" ?
> 
> As for expereience of the police , I think the question should be the other way round, how many of the people thinking it's a wonderful idea have ever been questioned by the police? Those that think this is a wonderful idea seem to thinking with their nuts, focusing on the idea of scum being stopped by nice bobbies. In reality the world is filled with a mix from scum to innocent peeps *and the police are filled with a mix from nice bobbies to hard arsed/ sarcastic/ corrupt /lazy slashed peaked control freaks.* Those that think this is a wonderful idea seem to imagine it will be scum being stopped by nice bobbies, those that are saying "hang on a minute" are probably a bit more realistic and imagining that there are also going to be innocent peeps stopped by* hard arsed/ sarcastic/ corrupt /lazy slashed peaked control freaks. * I'm going to presume you are a nice peep and I hope you never get to meet a hard arsed/ sarcastic/ corrupt /lazy slashed peaked control freak, but if you do your perspective may change.




wtf...





Listen mate, you may find a few neighbourhood bobbies and a few PCSO's involved.



...seriously you have been watching far too much TV.

Have something to hide per chance?

ps


you are the same poster who fully believes the highway code (section 59) should be law


----------



## Crankarm (15 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> However, as your "above points" had no basis in fact, repeating them gives them even less credibility.
> 
> Hmm... "dreaming up your own criteria" seems to be an appropriate comment from someone who considers that the police have approached this with a presumption of guilt.



Come Norm of all the posters on here I credit you with being one of the more rational and logical and would be able to understand the finer points  .


----------



## Crankarm (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576708"]
I was deliberately hit from behind, with two witnesses. I called the Police, who visited me, identified the driver, his address, phone number everything. The witnesses addresses were handed over, one of them lived 750m from the Police station. How long did it take it take them to go and get a statement?
a. 2 hours
b. 2 days
c. 2 months
d. it's been 2 years, and they have never been around

No prizes, it was decided by the twat officer in charge of the case that no further action was needed. He closed the file, and retired!

When I started kicking up a fuss after 2 months, I was bounced around the system, until I emailed the Chief Constable. Then all of a sudden, action, action, action, an Insepctor called, she said she would deal with the case personally, then rang back and said she couldn't as the file had gone missing, she said she would ring me back, I'm still waiting 17 months later.

In the spirit of the 80s, some of my best mates are coppers, but in my experience, the majority are not the slightest bit interested in evenly dealing with the public. I have seen local coppers on the phone while driving, park in ASLs and ignore similar offences from other drivers. Now though they are stopping cyclists to check if they own the bike. Is there a similar initiative to 'prevent car crime'? Numptys.
[/quote]

User76 seems like a typical happy police "customer", not.


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

I suggest User76 should have got control earlier and not let it run for years, his lack of interest was as bad as the police if it is true. One side of story and all that.


----------



## Crankarm (15 Oct 2011)

Chris-H said:


> Crankarm said:
> 
> 
> > When my Brompton was stolen the police didn't want to know. They weren't interested. It took endless calls to even get a crime number out of them, but fortunately dealing with my insurers was a doddle compared to the fuzz. My premium went up slightly though :~(.
> ...



You don't seem to able to grasp two totally different concepts 1) the police investigating specific alleged offences where property ie a bicycle(s) has/have been stolen, and 2) instead implementing their own broad brush policy to catch bike thieves by apprehending all cyclists selecting those with bicycles they consider to be suspicious. Where riders cannot prove that they own the bike to the police officer's or penguin's satisfaction the cyclist will be detained and if the officer so feels, arrest for theft or handling stolen goods.

There are 2 very different approaches. Approach number 1) I don't have a problem with, but approach 2) I think has been adopted as the police are lazy and under resourced to investigate specific cases of actual bike theft, so their top brass have come up with this daft plan to blitz any cyclist demanding they prove ownership, but if the poor cyclist can't then it's "You are nicked mate!"

I would like to know the exact criteria they will use to determine whether they "pull" a cyclist or not.

Maybe I should put on my knackered trainers, baggy holed jeans and hoody sweatshirt, baseball cap, i-pod and go out on my Brompton, set the saddle really low and see what happens ................. Preston is a long way though  .

Remember it was police incompetence, prejudice, ignorance, poor communication and trigger happy armed officers that shot dead Jean Charles de Menezes under the guise of protecting the wider population from terrorists.

Of course the police have never arrested the wrong person ever before, or falsely imprisoned any one or conspired in miscarriages of justice.


----------



## doog (15 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> You don't seem to able to grasp two totally different concepts 1) the police investigating specific alleged offences where property ie a bicycle(s) has/have been stolen, and 2) instead implementing their own broad brush policy to catch bike thieves by apprehending those cyclists with bicycles they consider to be suspicious and where they can prove that they own the bike to the police officer's or penguin's satisfaction they will be detained and arrested for theft or handling stolen goods.
> 
> There are 2 very different approaches. I think approach 2) had been adopted as the police are lazy and under resourced to investigate cases of actual bike theft so the top brass have come up with this daft plan to blitz any cyclist demanding they prove ownership, but if the poor cyclist can't then "You are nicked mate!"
> 
> ...



oh my bleeding heart. This poster manages to draw comparison with a low key neighbourhood operation and Jean Charles de Menezes.


it just gets better


----------



## diapason (15 Oct 2011)

Quite right, Crankarm. And, in the same way, as a driver, I object to being randomly stopped around Christmas on the off chance that I might have been drinking. Fair enough, if I was weaving all over the road or otherwise committing driving offences, but simply to be stopped and interrogated because I'm the xth number along that road is harrassment.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

screenman said:


> I feel it would be worth 60,000,000 people being stopped for one nicked person, however you might not know this but a lot fewer than 60,000,000 people drive in the UK, I know when you are stuck in a traffic jam it might seem like it but in reality there are far fewer.
> 
> Now I am sure there maybe police officers that match your description, however maybe some people bring out the worst in others.
> 
> ...



Where would you like to start?

If you want to see 60,000,000 detained to find one criminal , then I would suggest you are either indulging in hyperbole or you haven't really considered the problem.

There doesn't need to be 60,000,000 drivers to have 60,000,000 people stopped.

There are police that match my descprition , but whether some people bring out the worst in others is irrelevant , unless of course you have some method of keeping the two elements apart?

What do I expect of the police to meet my expectations? Very little. 

I'm not a Scoutmaster, I have never been a member of the BSA, my views would be far to libertarian for them.


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

Not all drunks weave all over the road, how would you suggest they find drunk drivers?

I honestly feel that you objectors have no answer other than objecting. Not once have any of you suggested an alternative method of apprehending criminal.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

diapason said:


> Quite right, Crankarm. And, in the same way, as a driver, I object to being randomly stopped around Christmas on the off chance that I might have been drinking. Fair enough, if I was weaving all over the road or otherwise committing driving offences, but simply to be stopped and interrogated because I'm the xth number along that road is harrassment.



Ahh but don't forget you aren't being "randomly stopped" for a breath test, because the police don't have the power to do that!

You might however be stopped for a "document check" and then asked for a breath test... Or that old favourite, the "flickering tail light" , that magically " Seems OK now Sir!, but by the way , have you been drinking?"

Does anyone want to take the time to explain to concept of mission creep?


----------



## doog (15 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> I'm not a Scoutmaster, I have never been a member of the BSA, my views would be far to libertarian for them.



as someone else who has asked you about this can you explain your sig? As a father of three I find the fact that you may have anything to do with scouting rather disturbing.


----------



## diapason (15 Oct 2011)

They find drunk drivers by being alert and noticing erratic driving patters and/or pop into busy pubs in the course of their patrolling and note any drunks who may be likely to drive. In the same way, they catch bike (and other) thieves by patrolling the beat. Above all, they should respond promptly and urgently to reported crimes, not leaving it hours/days to turn up. I do speak from bitter experience. I reported a suspected burglary - lights on and a van outside a neighbour's house when the owners were on holiday. Ringing 999 from Somerset, I was connected to a control room in SCOTLAND and asked whether I could actually see intruders in the house. They told me that they would not respond unless I walked across the fields to the empty house and looked through the windows to see if a crime was 'in progress'. I have had other similar experiences when reporting crimes, hence my scepticism.


----------



## Norm (15 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> You don't seem to able to grasp two totally different concepts 1) the police investigating specific alleged offences where property ie a bicycle(s) has/have been stolen, and 2) instead implementing their own broad brush policy to catch bike thieves by apprehending all cyclists selecting those with bicycles they consider to be suspicious. Where riders cannot prove that they own the bike to the police officer's or penguin's satisfaction the cyclist will be detained and if the officer so feels, arrest for theft or handling stolen goods.


For reference:



MontyVeda said:


> well judging by most of the comments not many of you have ever been stopped by the police when they're keeping their eye out for a stolen bike. It goes something like this...
> 
> 
> Policeman: "Hello sir, without looking at your bike, can you tell me what make or model it is?"
> ...


It is unlikely that any weapons would be drawn in the performance of this operation.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

screenman said:


> Not all drunks weave all over the road, how would you suggest they find drunk drivers?
> 
> I honestly feel that you objectors have no answer other than objecting. Not once have any of you suggested an alternative method of apprehending criminal.



1) I don't need to have answer, I just want to be left alone.
2) Did you miss the suggestions futher up the thread that were poo pooed by the police members here as too much trouble?

I haven't got a great deal of time for politicians, but parliment has decided that the police should not have the power for random breath tests. If you have a problem with that decision then take it up with those that make the laws, don't cheer on those that push the boundaries of what they are allowed to do. Either you believe in laws or you don't, you can't dip in and out of them when it's convienient.


----------



## Crankarm (15 Oct 2011)

screenman said:


> Not all drunks weave all over the road, how would you suggest they find drunk drivers?
> 
> I honestly feel that you objectors have no answer other than objecting. Not once have any of you suggested an alternative method of apprehending criminal.



Right your bike is stolen tonight. Tommorrow morning you discover it is missing and report it to your local plod with all the salient details.

You expect or even demand that plod investigate it's theft.

Do they collect evidence and then investigate according to the evidence they have ie description of your bike, finger prints at scene of break in and other evidence .............

or ......... do they round up all the cyclists in local area take them to the town central square, line them up and ask them all to individually prove ownership of their bicycles, even if the stolen bike they are looking for is NOT amongst them? Those who cannot prove ownership of their bicycles are carted away and charged with theft. Seems a very broad totalitarian, brutal way to investigate a specific offence of bike theft. This is the sort of thing that happens in bleak police states.

It is my impression that the over riding feeling in this country is that people shall not be falsely accused, have a right to a fair trial, are presumed to be innocent rather than guilty and are not falsely imprisoned.

The police have to act within the law and should not exceed their powers. It is parliament that makes legislation not the police and the courts are the guardians of the law. I feel this "initiative" would only need a test case to show it was unlawful.

Have you heard of habeus corpus?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> as someone else who has asked you about this can you explain your sig? As a father of three I find the fact that you may have anything to do with scouting rather disturbing.



If you are that disturbed, I suggest you contact Gilwell Park.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> It is my impression that the over riding feeling in this country is that people shall not be falsely accused, have a right to a fair trial, are presumed to be innocent rather than guilty and are not falsely imprisoned.



Ahhh but you miss the point of those that welcome this innitiative ! The people here who think this is a wonderful idea have a concept of US and THEM. These people expect THEM to be questioned and asked prove that the bike is theirs , but they expect US to be given a fair trial , presumed to be innocent rather than guilty and not falsely imprisoned.

Of course, the big problem is that they are half right , there is an US and THEM, but they don't realise that they can easily be mistaken for THEM when they know they are US.


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

Has it not even slightly occurred to you that having stops in place by the police might stop criminals from riding bikes, also might make the market for stolen bikes not so good. Now with 1200 bikes per day nicked that would be a lot of police time calling at peoples homes, taking a statement finger prints etc. could be effective maybe not, sure would cost a lot though. 

Now I for one would be happy to pay say and extra £200 per year maybe more to have more police officers out on the beat stopping more suspects.

I feel I am being dragged down and beaten with experience on this topic.

US and THEM, seems a bit paranoid to me. I am not a number I am a Ahhhh!


----------



## Crankarm (15 Oct 2011)

screenman said:


> Not all drunks weave all over the road, how would you suggest they find drunk drivers?
> 
> I honestly feel that you objectors have no answer other than objecting. Not once have any of you suggested an alternative method of apprehending criminal.



I believe certain people take a lot of civic pride in denouncing drunk and potential drunk drivers to the police (rightly so IMHO, but I digress) who would then legitimately have reason to stop the vehicle or person on which they have been given information is actually driving under the influence of alcohol or even drugs. This I would suspect would mean they could legitmately stop the car. If the car itself has a rear light that is not working even better the police would have further legitimate reason to stop the vehilce or if the standard of driving of the driver raises concerns of the police this can also trigger their powers to stop the vehicle.

The point I am making is that that the police have to operate within the law. Applying a blanket approach to apprehend every driver or cyclist would not be lawful unless it was enacted in law or they are given special powers. Any criteria to stop any group of people must be based on EVIDENCE, completely transparent and free of prejudice that has dogged investigations in the past.


----------



## doog (15 Oct 2011)

screenman said:


> Has it not even slightly occurred to you that having stops in place by the police might stop criminals from riding bikes, also might make the market for stolen bikes not so good. Now with 1200 bikes per day nicked that would be a lot of police time calling at peoples homes, taking a statement finger prints etc. could be effective maybe not, sure would cost a lot though.
> 
> Now I for one would be happy to pay say and extra £200 per year maybe more to have more police officers out on the beat stopping more suspects.
> 
> ...



you are being dragged down and beaten by cynics. 

One of the main detractors on this subject wants to persecute dog owners using one totally obscure part of the highway code.

This same person objects to a potential thief being stopped on a stolen bike because he (the poster)may be stopped in the process. Make sense of that.


----------



## Crankarm (15 Oct 2011)

screenman said:


> Has it not even slightly occurred to you that having stops in place by the police might stop criminals from riding bikes, also might make the market for stolen bikes not so good. Now with 1200 bikes per day nicked that would be a lot of police time calling at peoples homes, taking a statement finger prints etc. could be effective maybe not, sure would cost a lot though.
> 
> Now I for one would be happy to pay say and extra £200 per year maybe more to have more police officers out on the beat stopping more suspects.
> 
> ...



From the police POV there are only criminals, every one at some point is a criminal, except them of course  .


----------



## Crankarm (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576745"]
I assure you it's all completely true. I have given up chasing, as when the area Inspector can't be bothered, the PC initiating the paperwork has retired and they are apparently "out of time" on the investigation (maybe one of our resident plod could explain this concept, it baffled me) there seems little point continuing.

It has left me with a very jaded view of the Police as a result. I have always been very helpful in the past, but no more. If they want my 'assistance' they are going to be sadly disappointed.
[/quote]


Maggot, to add insult to injury, your taxes are going to pay for the officer's cushy retirement  .


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> you are being dragged down and beaten by cynics.



you are being dragged down and beaten by cynics. realists.


----------



## PK99 (15 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> They don't, they just need to threat of doing so to force questions to be answered.



Have you stopped taking your pills again?


----------



## PK99 (15 Oct 2011)

snorri said:


> With an opening line like that, I doubt the rest of your post is worth reading. Unless you can explain what has led to that view?




many years practice is setting up Straw Man arguments on internet forums, maybe?


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

A wise man speaks because they have something to say, a fool speaks because they have to say something.


----------



## doog (15 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> Maggot, to add insult to injury, your taxes are going to pay for the officer's cushy retirement  .



The officer paying in 11% of his salary for 30 years pays for his cushy retirement.






Far too many Guardian readers on this forum.


----------



## PK99 (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576716"]
How?
[/quote]


I could rhyme off instantly make, model, year, size, and tyre make model and size size and other deatils of any of my bikes


----------



## doog (15 Oct 2011)

PK99 said:


> I could rhyme off instantly make, model, year, size, and tyre make model and size size and other deatils of any of my bikes



likewise, naming the make of the saddle (Brooks) would probably save me from being shot de menezes style or arrested by the so called lazy, corrupt slashed peak..........







safer neighbourhood team


----------



## Crankarm (15 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> The officer paying in 11% of his salary for 30 years pays for his cushy retirement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your prejudices continue .............


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (15 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> The officer paying in 11% of his salary for 30 years pays for his cushy retirement.



Really? I was under the impression that as there is no fund, the officer paying 11% of his salary is actually paying for the people who retired before him. He/she is relying on his replacment to pay 11% of their salary to cover his retirement, and as the numbers fluctuate and as life expectancy increases, the council taxpayer makes up the difference.


----------



## Crankarm (15 Oct 2011)

PK99 said:


> I could rhyme off instantly make, model, year, size, and tyre make model and size size and other deatils of any of my bikes




You should get out more and use spell checker  .


----------



## Crankarm (15 Oct 2011)

screenman said:


> A wise man speaks because they have something to say, a fool speaks because they have to say something.




You know you have lost the argument when you start playing the man rather than the ball .


----------



## diapason (15 Oct 2011)

I feel that we are losing the plot somewhere.

IGMC


----------



## PK99 (15 Oct 2011)

diapason said:


> They find drunk drivers by being alert and noticing erratic driving patters and/or pop into busy pubs in the course of their patrolling and note any drunks who may be likely to drive. In the same way, they catch bike (and other) thieves by patrolling the beat. Above all, they should respond promptly and urgently to reported crimes, not leaving it hours/days to turn up. * I do speak from bitter experience*. I reported a suspected burglary - lights on and a van outside a neighbour's house when the owners were on holiday. Ringing 999 from Somerset, I was connected to a control room in SCOTLAND and asked whether I could actually see intruders in the house. They told me that they would not respond unless I walked across the fields to the empty house and looked through the windows to see if a crime was 'in progress'. I have had other similar experiences when reporting crimes, hence my scepticism.



*I have a different experience*

there has been a spate of burglaries and thefts from sheds in my area.

a few weeks ago i sent a simple email to my local "Community Team" saying someone had tried to get into my garage, but had failed and nothing stolen.

later the same day 2 pcso's came round for a butchers ".. to see the sort of garages they are trying to break into" and give advice on security


Over the years i've had a few burglaries/attempted burglaries, each time the service from the police has been very prompt and efficient 

On one of them i sacred the guy off my roof at 10:30 one morning and was taken to view the local mug shot album, spotted the scrote and the next time they picked him up he was prosecuted for my "job".

on another occasion i was mugged 5 minutes away from home, phoned police immediately they were here in 5 minutes and i was driven round the are in a panda car looking for the scrotes.


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

I could tell you the colour and model of my old one, but cannot remember anything else about it, green 308 gt4.

The 11% of salary does not stack up, nowhere near enough in the pot for a reasonable pension. Our local Bobby is retiring soon after 30 years in the job and he is now only 48, I have two close friends who are retired policeman both have now been retired over 30 years.

Can you not just tell I am not a civil servant with a nice fat pension, holiday pay, sickness pay, cheap BUPA even private education paid for for some children of certain parents.


----------



## doog (15 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Really? I was under the impression that as there is no fund, the officer paying 11% of his salary is actually paying for the people who retired before him. He/she is relying on his replacment to pay 11% of their salary to cover his retirement, and as the numbers fluctuate and as life expectancy increases, the council taxpayer makes up the difference.



sweeping statements that taxpayers pay for police pension is the point I was getting at.

It is correct that contributions are falling short at the moment (due to new recruits paying in 9% over 35 years) but are due to surpass requirements in a few years without any increases. As you say they fluctuate.


----------



## snorri (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576715"]
These are not 'similar' initiatives though. They are 'remote' initiatives. Imagine if you were driving to work on Monday, and the Police stopped 50% of the cars to check ownership, based on whether or not the person looked like they should be driving that particular car and nothing else.
[/quote]

Is there any evidence to suggest that 50% of cyclists are being stopped?


----------



## doog (15 Oct 2011)

screenman said:


> I could tell you the colour and model of my old one, but cannot remember anything else about it, green 308 gt4.
> 
> The 11% of salary does not stack up, nowhere near enough in the pot for a reasonable pension. Our local Bobby is retiring soon after 30 years in the job and he is now only 48, I have two close friends who are retired policeman both have now been retired over 30 years.
> 
> *Can you not just tell I am not a civil servant *with a nice fat pension, holiday pay, sickness pay, cheap BUPA even private education paid for for some children of certain parents.



you probably had the chance to be one...what stopped you ? more fool you


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

*Targeting riders*
Police officers are of course not stopping every cyclist out riding their bike. People are only stopped from riding their bikes if an officer believes that the bike could be stolen, Lancashire Police told us. For instance, a man who is riding a woman’s bike or a child’s bike will be stopped as that instantly rouses suspicion.


*Results so far*
One seized bikes has already been returned to the rightful owner. Result!


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

Doog, not really I have always enjoyed being self employed and giving others the opportunity of work. I also intend to run my business until at least 75 if possible.

In all honesty I feel there are many civil servants thoroughly deserving of their pensions, but I am sure you also know of a few who maybe not so deserving. I just wish things were clearer about who is paying for it, my pal says he used his pot up in the first 7 years of his up to now 30.


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

Maggot, no that means that many people who had their bikes nicked did not provide sufficient information for them to be returned quickly, or that they may be needed for future evidence.

Funny you would think an ex south London car dealer like myself would be joining the objection brigade.


----------



## PK99 (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576770"]
*So, the other 16 were incorrectly seized then?* That's a not very good success rate is it?
[/quote]

That does not follow - they might have been nicked but the real owner not yet identified


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

That is enough for me guys as I have the BHF Robin Hood ride in the morning 37 miles off road, hope some nice lady officer stops me for a chat about bikes. Something about women in uniform


----------



## screenman (15 Oct 2011)

Good one.

Thanks to all who have helped me pass some time tonight. May the tea leaves stay out of your sheds tonight and for ever.


----------



## Norm (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576774"]With cars they are allowed to continue on their way, but given a 'producer' aren't they? [/quote]Well, if we start with the point that cars are only allowed to continue on their way if the police officer is satisfied that the driver is who they say they are (recognise that) then your fairness question is answered.

[QUOTE 1576775"] Well, according to their own website, only one had been nicked. [/quote]You've found something on their site? I couldn't, any chance of a link please.

[QUOTE 1576775"] I have no picture of myself on my Trek mtb, what am I to do? [/quote] That depends what relevance you think a picture of yourself on your bike would be.


----------



## snorri (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576767"]
No. How about 5% of motorists being stopped and being asked the 'proof' questions, or even just 5 motorists. There would still be outrage. We are still being treated very differently.
[/quote]

The percentage of motorists outraged would be statistically insignificant, but a signifcantly large percentage of the outraged motorists would have had a jaded view of police operations prior to the incident that led to their latest bout of outrage.


----------



## PK99 (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576775"]
*Well, according to their own website, only one had been nicked*. Or are we now assuming that all of them were nicked, but the other 16 owners were lucky enough to have a picture of themselves on the bike?

I have no picture of myself on my Trek mtb, what am I to do?
[/quote]

your statement does not logically follow from what is stated on the website, which is that one bike has been returned to its owner


*</h2>



">Results so far

Click to expand...

*


> Neighbourhood officers in the Fulwood area of Preston have already seized 17 bikes in a fortnight after suspecting them to be stolen. One seized bikes has already been returned to the rightful owner.


----------



## Norm (15 Oct 2011)

The original assertion...
[QUOTE 1576775"] Well, according to their own website, only one had been nicked. [/quote]

[QUOTE 1576781"] http://www.goinggoin...brings-results/

Scroll down to 'Results so far' [/quote] The supporting "evidence" which shows that not only is it from "their own website" but it says that one has been returned to its rightful owner, and offers nothing at all about whether the other 16 had been nicked or not.

[QUOTE 1576783"] Is your surety of this system starting to be shaken Norm? [/quote] TBH, Maggot, my surety of the relevance and reliability of many of your comments on this thread has been pretty uncertain but that kinda destroys any shred of surety I might have had.


----------



## Crankarm (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576784"]
What do you think happened to the other 16?
[/quote]

Disappeared into the police abyss most likely. They will then materialise next spring so they can be auctioned off, a nice little earner for the plods  .


----------



## Norm (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576787"] What about a photo being proof of ownership Norm? [/quote] For the third time in this thread...




MontyVeda said:


> well judging by most of the comments not many of you have ever been stopped by the police when they're keeping their eye out for a stolen bike. It goes something like this...
> 
> 
> Policeman: "Hello sir, without looking at your bike, can you tell me what make or model it is?"
> ...



[QUOTE 1576788"]
So, if Plod arrest 17 people, but charge 1, you would think "Well the others are guilty, but there's no evidence yet" would you?
[/quote]
Any other straw men you'd like to build and make false assertions about?


----------



## PK99 (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576790"]
Plod, "Is your carbon fibre Trek Madone sir, it looks like Norms"

Someone on bike who may well have nicked it "Yeah, here's a picture my mate took of me on it"

Plod "Have a nice day sir, sorry to have bothered you"
[/quote]

You should not assume that police officers are as stupid and naiv*e *as you appear to be, if you really believe what you posted.


----------



## PK99 (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576792"]
"Acceptable documentation regarding ownership is a receipt, _*a photograph of the rider on the bike seized,*_"

Not my words, check out the website.
[/quote]

stupid and naive were clearly appropriate terms if you are unable to recognise that the nature of the photograph would be of significance.


----------



## PK99 (15 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576794"]
Oh OK, Plod says that a picture of a person on a bike is 'proof of ownership', but I am stupid and naive? What aspects of the picture will Plod take into account then? I'm intrigued. 

I work with a girl who has a really nice Canondale mtb on the CycleScheme, it has never, and will never, go off-road, so any pictures of her on it will not be in the 'context' of a mtb will they?
[/quote]

Any more space at that wall???

Some photographs would prove ownership others would not. is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?


----------



## doog (15 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> Disappeared into the police abyss most likely. They will then materialise next spring so they can be auctioned off, a nice little earner for the plods  .



Unless the bike can be proved to be stolen it goes back to the person it was seized from. 

As for the nice little earner you will be pleased to learn that any money goes to charity and voluntary groups

http://www.gmpa.gov....ertyactfund.htm


----------



## Norm (15 Oct 2011)

I think it should be noted that the website might have its own agenda, as "*Going Going Bike is on a mission to create the legitimate online marketplace for used bicycles*". 

Anyway, the website says:


> We asked Lancashire Police to clarify what they termed as proof of ownership. They told us that if someone is stopped and cannot verify ownership on the spot, the bike can be seized and the person riding it will be asked to provide documents to prove ownership at a police station in order to get the bike back.


 So, at the first point of contact, they to see if the rider can verify ownership on the spot, an example of which would be in MontyVeda's post above. If they can't satisfy the officer on the spot, then a photo would be one of many ways that the rider could subsequently prove ownership.


----------



## snorri (16 Oct 2011)

It's also important to emphasise 'the bike _can _be seized', not the bike _will _be seized. Not much fear of any honest person without a major chip on their shoulder having a bike seized.


----------



## Crankarm (16 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> I think it should be noted that the website might have its own agenda, as "*Going Going Bike is on a mission to create the legitimate online marketplace for used bicycles*".
> 
> Anyway, the website says: So, at the first point of contact, they to see if the rider can verify ownership on the spot, an example of which would be in MontyVeda's post above. If they can't satisfy the officer on the spot, then a photo would be one of many ways that the rider could subsequently prove ownership.




Best dig out the pic of when I bought my bike showing the seller shaking my hand, indicating that the deal had been done and money had changed hands ........... unless of course the bike was already stolen and not his to sell.

How about Ebay/Paypal receipts?

Why don't plod target the hundreds of dodgy Ebay ads for obviously nicked bikes and other property? But this would involve time, money and actually investigating offences which plod are clearly reluctant to do. They would much rather hassle people who look a bit odd going about their lawful business in the hope they catch a criminal.

They really are making it up as they go along.


----------



## Norm (16 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> Why don't plod target the hundreds of dodgy Ebay ads for obviously nicked bikes and other property?


 They do that too, but, if that was all they did, I'm sure others would complain that they never see police on the streets.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with a bit of visible policing.


----------



## Chris-H (16 Oct 2011)

screenman said:


> Not all drunks weave all over the road, how would you suggest they find drunk drivers?
> 
> I honestly feel that you objectors have no answer other than objecting. Not once have any of you suggested an alternative method of apprehending criminal.


+1 if they honestly feel the police are as incompetant as they say why dont they join the force,they seem to think they can do a lot better job,also why dont they become politicians too,that way they can make up some ridiculous laws based on their ideals,to catch all the criminals in this country without ever having to stop anyone.That way the public wont ever have to be inconvenienced and have their lives so rudeley interupted for 2 very precious minutes to help the police to do a very demanding job (which of course they could do better than themselves) .


----------



## Vikeonabike (16 Oct 2011)

Instead of stopping cyclist randomly, now that the nights are drawing in, the police (I mean me) could (read as, will be) stopping every person found cycling after dark without lights. Now that is not to say that bike theft only happens during a time of darkness. What it does mean is a legitimate reason to stop a person on a bike. 

This has several advantages over random stopping. Firstly there is the safety issue. Secondly, it give me the right to ascertain there name date of birth address etc (which then can be checked against the Police National Computer, Local Intelligence systems, Crime data). I can then check to see if the bike is thiers, and if enough suspicion is raised then I can get my hands in thier pockets...



Watch out Peterborugh it starts tonight!





PS Won't be running this op next summer!


----------



## PK99 (16 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576799"]
What type of photograph would disprove ownership, and what type of picture would prove ownership? 


[/quote]

30 seconds on an i-phone and i could call up picture of me on any of my bikes on CTC or club outings


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Oct 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> Instead of stopping cyclist randomly, now that the nights are drawing in, the police (I mean me) could (read as, will be) stopping every person found cycling after dark without lights. Now that is not to say that bike theft only happens during a time of darkness. What it does mean is a legitimate reason to stop a person on a bike.
> 
> This has several advantages over random stopping. Firstly there is the safety issue. Secondly, it give me the right to ascertain there name date of birth address etc (which then can be checked against the Police National Computer, Local Intelligence systems, Crime data). I can then check to see if the bike is thiers, and if enough suspicion is raised then I can get my hands in thier pockets...



Works for me!


----------



## GFamily (16 Oct 2011)

snorri said:


> It's also important to emphasise 'the bike _can _be seized', not the bike _will _be seized. Not much fear of any honest person without a major chip on their shoulder having a bike seized.



No, if the police are suspicious they have said they WILL seize the bike until the owner can prove ownership. 

Do you seriously think the police can just look at people and tell if they are 'honest' ?


----------



## PK99 (16 Oct 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> Instead of stopping cyclist randomly, now that the nights are drawing in, the police (I mean me) could (read as, will be) stopping every person found cycling after dark without lights. Now that is not to say that bike theft only happens during a time of darkness. What it does mean is a legitimate reason to stop a person on a bike.
> 
> This has several advantages over random stopping. Firstly there is the safety issue. Secondly, it give me the right to ascertain there name date of birth address etc (which then can be checked against the Police National Computer, Local Intelligence systems, Crime data). I can then check to see if the bike is thiers, and if enough suspicion is raised then I can get my hands in thier pockets...
> 
> ...




Thee points:

1 there is no suggestion of random stops:


*</h2>



<h>Targeting riders

Click to expand...

*


> Police officers are of course not stopping every cyclist out riding their bike. People are only stopped from riding their bikes if an officer believes that the bike could be stolen, Lancashire Police told us. For instance, a man who is riding a woman’s bike or a child’s bike will be stopped as that instantly rouses suspicion.


http://www.goinggoin...brings-results/


2 Everyone i know who had a bike stolen, other than in a shed/garage break in, has lost it in daylight hours.

3 Stolen quality bikes are (see gumtree, e-bay, Brick Lane, etc) most often not kept and ridden by the thief but off loaded for cash

stopping someone looking out of place on a bike (eg trainer clad hoodie on an SPD equipped bike) seems appropriate


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (16 Oct 2011)

+99999999 for the Old Bill in Preston.

(17 pages of this? Move topic to "Helmet Debates"?)


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Oct 2011)

Jimmy The Whiskers said:


> +99999999 for the Old Bill in Preston.
> 
> (17 pages of this? Move topic to "Helmet Debates"?)



I'm always a bit amused at those who want to close down/move a debate, but only after they have had their turn, never before.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576769"]
How about, next time you a see a copper, stop him and ask him to actually prove he's a copper? Not just his uniform and numbers, you can get them anywhere. A warrant card can easily be faked, so how does he actually _prove _he's a copper? 

[/quote]

I was going to ask you to prove you are actually a moron... but there is no need, it's quite obvious.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Oct 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> I was going to ask you to prove you are actually a moron... but there is no need, it's quite obvious.



It's nice to see so many trusting people around, George Parker would have loved you all.


----------



## PK99 (16 Oct 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> I was going to ask you to prove you are actually a moron... but there is no need, it's quite obvious.



ROFLMAO!


----------



## doog (16 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> I'm always a bit amused at those who want to close down/move a debate, but only after they have had their turn, never before.



He probably didnt want a 3 day 'run in' with certain posters who are determined to have the last word and who have an agenda other than the subject in question (ring any bells).


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (16 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> I'm always a bit amused at those who want to close down/move a debate, but only after they have had their turn, never before.



Thanks for being so patronising.

I didn't suggest closing anything and my suggestion to move it to the Helmet Debates section was a "tongue in cheek" remark on how contentious the subject had proved.

How unlike you to jump down someone's throat at the first opportunity.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576817"]
Jeez, you guys crack me up. Who needs sensible debate when you can call people names?
[/quote]

Sensible debate? Did you actually read the last 18 pages


----------



## Norm (16 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576817"] Jeez, you guys crack me up. Who needs sensible debate when you can call people names? [/quote] Would sensible debate involve making up your own stories, ignoring information given and ignoring any responses which show how un-sensible our own debates have been?


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (16 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576820"]
Now, do you think you can carry on *without the need for personal insults*, or is that your default manouvere if you are disagreed with? I eagerly await the apology.
[/quote]

You might take your own advice and stop referring to the Police as "plod".


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> He probably didnt want a 3 day 'run in' with certain posters who are determined to have the last word and who have an agenda other than the subject in question (ring any bells).



All of which could have been avoided by not chipping in...

I have no problem whatsover with anyone having or voicing an opinion, but as I said I find it amusing when ... Oh you know the rest...


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Oct 2011)

Jimmy The Whiskers said:


> Thanks for being so patronising.
> 
> I didn't suggest closing anything and my suggestion to move it to the Helmet Debates section was a "tongue in cheek" remark on how contentious the subject had proved.
> 
> How unlike you to jump down someone's throat at the first opportunity.



I'm sorry, I didn't mean it to be patronising, I really was amused.,


----------



## Zoiders (16 Oct 2011)

So...tell us LYB...what were you arrested for, charged with and then convicted of?


----------



## snorri (16 Oct 2011)

GFamily said:


> No, if the police are suspicious they have said they WILL seize the bike until the owner can prove ownership.
> 
> Do you seriously think the police can just look at people and tell if they are 'honest' ?



Seems quite reasonable for the police to seize property they believe to be stolen. 

I never suggested that police can judge degree of honesty by apppearance so don't know why you ask me that question.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576820"]
Yes, I have read them all. I especially like your recent addition, namely that if I disagree with you, I must be a moron. I think that moves the debate on greatly I am sure you agree?

It certainly got PK rolling in the aisles anyway, but then I disagreed with him as well didn't I? Bit of a theme there eh?

Now, do you think you can carry on without the need for personal insults, or is that your default manouvere if you are disagreed with? I eagerly await the apology.
[/quote]

Asking you to prove if you were a moron or not was a response to your suggestion of getting the police to prove they are actually a policeman officer... in my mind, this a moronic suggestion. 

[QUOTE 1576769"]
How about, next time you a see a copper, stop him and ask him to actually prove he's a copper? Not just his uniform and numbers, you can get them anywhere. A warrant card can easily be faked, so how does he actually _prove _he's a copper? 

If he tries to seize your bike, resist it and beat him up, as you have no proof he is actually who he says he is. It used to happen a lot in Northern Ireland, dodgy vcp's. 

It's not so easy this proof thing.
[/quote]

If a policeman officer wants to ask you a question or two and you refuse to answer any questions until you're satisfied that they are in fact a policeman officer, with you claiming their ID can easily be forged, their numbers and uniform can bought anywhere and therefore they are not proof, then you really are a moron... with a capitol M.

If, as you suggest, they do try to seize your bike and you are well within your rights to 'beat him up'... then stronger words than 'moron' would be applicable.


----------



## gaz (16 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> ..as an innocent man I would expect to be able to make any journey without having to answer questions asked by the police.



How do the police know who is innocent and who isn't?


----------



## PedAntics (16 Oct 2011)

Do you seriously think the police can just look at people and tell if they are 'honest' ?
[/quote]

It's the swag bag that give the dishonest ones away!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Oct 2011)

Zoiders said:


> So...tell us LYB...what were you arrested for, charged with and then convicted of?



Whether I had been or not, if the reabilitation of offenders act applied, or not, the answer would be the same to you as it would be to any police officer who had stopped me using the RTA powers. Mind your own business!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Oct 2011)

snorri said:


> Seems quite reasonable for the police to seize property they believe to be stolen.



Reasonable? In what sort of world is it reasonable that an officer of the state can sieze a person's property without proving that that person is guilty and that the property is stolen?
I'm really open mouthed in incredulity that so many people are happy to throw away a thousand years of law and democracy , I'm also equally gob smacked that so many people would be happy to see themselves in a situation where they would be saying " I'm innocent" and the police would be saying " prove it" It's really , really worrying that all of those people who will allow the police to act like Judge Dredd have a vote! :-(


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Oct 2011)

gaz said:


> How do the police know who is innocent and who isn't?



Oh that's an easy one, they presume that you are innocent , right up until the moment that a court of law decides otherwise. Of course this is time consuming and expensive , so I can see the attraction of trying to reverse the burden of proof, the attraction for the police I mean.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Oct 2011)

Zoiders said:


> That's a yes then.



No, that's a "Mind your own business", if you think that = "Yes I have a criminal record" feel free to think that. It simply shows that you shouldn't be allowed to make those sort of decisions.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Oh that's an easy one, they presume that you are innocent , right up until the moment that a court of law decides otherwise.
> ...



I do agree with on this one LYB, however by your reckoning the police shouldn't even be approaching people they presume to be innocent and hence, nothing would ever go to court.

Without psychic powers, they have to resort to asking questions. Why is this so outrageous?


----------



## snorri (16 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Reasonable? In what sort of world is it reasonable that an officer of the state can sieze a person's property without proving that that person is guilty and that the property is stolen?
> I'm really open mouthed in incredulity that so many people are happy to throw away a thousand years of law and democracy , I'm also equally gob smacked that so many people would be happy to see themselves in a situation where they would be saying " I'm innocent" and the police would be saying " prove it" It's really , really worrying that all of those people who will allow the police to act like Judge Dredd have a vote! :-(



You are going from the sublime to the ridiculous now LyB. I think most of us realise User76 and yourself are on a wind-up mission, but you've pushed the boat out a bit too far now.


----------



## Zoiders (16 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> No, that's a "Mind your own business", if you think that = "Yes I have a criminal record" feel free to think that. It simply shows that you shouldn't be allowed to make those sort of decisions.


I don't make that decision the courts do old chap, if the rozzers are doing a sweep for stolen bikes it is perfectly reasonable for them to stop cyclists, just like they do with safety checks for cyclists as well from time to time.

Would you try and blaze through a road block if they were doing vehicle spot checks as well?

We don't live in a police state - that's just a fiddle fantasy for the paranoid.

The last person I encountered with such a paranoid attitude about being stopped by the police had just been done for threatening a woman driver with a screwdriver.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Oct 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> I do agree with on this one LYB, however by your reckoning the police shouldn't even be approaching people they presume to be innocent and hence, nothing would ever go to court.
> 
> Without psychic powers, they have to resort to asking questions. Why is this so outrageous?



I have never said that the police shoudn't be questioning suspects , however the presumption that they can and will confiscate property unless they are satisfied turns justice on it's head and blows a hole in every safeguard put in place over the last 1,000 yrs. It's wrong, just so wrong.


----------



## Zoiders (16 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> I have never said that the police shoudn't be questioning suspects , however the presumption that they can and will confiscate property unless they are satisfied turns justice on it's head and blows a hole in every safeguard put in place over the last 1,000 yrs. It's wrong, just so wrong.


No it's not.

My MTB turned up in the hands of a bloke commuting back and forth from work, he certainly did not look suspicious but he could not provide a convincing explanation for how he came to be in possession of my bike.

The black market for stolen goods is huge and it's not just overtly dodgy people who buy them, it's just cheap and stupid people, some of whom are even keen cyclists.


----------



## genisis (16 Oct 2011)

why not register your bike at a bike shop or some where


----------



## PK99 (16 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Reasonable? In what sort of world is it reasonable that an officer of the state can sieze a person's property without proving that that person is guilty and that the property is stolen?
> I'm really open mouthed in incredulity that so many people are happy to throw away a thousand years of law and democracy , I'm also equally gob smacked that so many people would be happy to see themselves in a situation where they would be saying " I'm innocent" and the police would be saying " prove it" It's really , really worrying that all of those people who will allow the police to act like Judge Dredd have a vote! :-(



Have a look here >>>> http://www.advicegui...lice_powers.htm






> *Stop and account*
> The police can stop anyone in a public place and ask you to account for yourself. For example, you could be asked to account for your actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of anything. When the police stop you and ask you for an explanation, you don't need to provide your personal details. The police do not have to make a record or give you a receipt. But you may be asked to give your ethnicity.





*]<*


> *When can the police seize property*
> Police should only seize goods if they have reasonable grounds for believing that:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gaz (16 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Oh that's an easy one, they presume that you are innocent , right up until the moment that a court of law decides otherwise. Of course this is time consuming and expensive , so I can see the attraction of trying to reverse the burden of proof, the attraction for the police I mean.




Your initial comment stated that because you where innocent then you didn't want your time waisted. And again i'll point out, how do the police know you are innocent until they have had a chat with you?
Would the police get anywhere in any case if all they thought about was disturbing the innocent people from their daily lives?


----------



## roadrash (16 Oct 2011)

policeman .."oh look there goes a smack head on a brand new carbon fibre bike" 
smackhead ..".you cant waste two minutes of my time , im innocent "
policeman ..."i do apologise sir , on your way then before you beat me up 

DOES,NT REALLY WORK DOES IT
GET A GRIP


----------



## PK99 (16 Oct 2011)

genisis said:


> why not register your bike at a bike shop or some where



eg http://www.immobilise.com/


----------



## doog (16 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Reasonable? In what sort of world is it reasonable that an officer of the state can sieze a person's property without proving that that person is guilty and that the property is stolen?
> *I'm really open mouthed in incredulity that so many people are happy to throw away a thousand years of law and democracy* , I'm also equally gob smacked that so many people would be happy to see themselves in a situation where they would be saying " I'm innocent" and the police would be saying " prove it" It's really , really worrying that all of those people who will allow the police to act like Judge Dredd have a vote! :-(



Playing devils advocate here.







there is a thousand years of law and democracy and then there is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

LYB is questioning Police powers to seize property (bikes) when the officer is conducting these stop checks on cyclists.

Does that officer suspect the bike to be stolen when he stops the cyclist? Answer No. He is stopping the cyclist under the Road Traffic Act (?)and will then, through questioning form the opinion that the property is stolen. If he thinks its stolen he seizes it -* but shouldnt he be arresting the offender as well? for handling or sus theft?*


If this isnt happening then one would question if the Officer has formed reasonable suspicion or has reasonable grounds that the cycle is stolen!!

Seizing something because the Police' want to check it out 'etc shouldnt be happening of course.

It happens all the time we know....stopping vehicles under the road traffic act etc then goes onto a S1 search and arrest or seizure of property but using this routine for cyclists may be argued (by some) *as being unethical and not within the spirit of PACE. *



PS 

can someone clarify under what act the cyclists are being stopped under?


----------



## PK99 (17 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> Does that officer suspect the bike to be stolen when he stops the cyclist? Answer No. He is stopping the cyclist under the Road Traffic Act (?)




no he isn't , :


http://www.homeoffic...top-and-search/


*Stop and account*



> Stop and account (that is where an individual is asked to account for their presence, actions etc, but not searched) is not a defined power set out in primary legislation, but an important part of on-street policing and constitutes the next step beyond the general conversations officers have with members of the public every day.


----------



## Shaun (17 Oct 2011)

One such way would be to ask which shop the bike was bought from - and if the person says "Shop x" and they are know _not_ to stock that brand of bike, it would be an opening to question further to see if there are other holes in the background story.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (17 Oct 2011)

Admin said:


> One such way would be to ask which shop the bike was bought from - and if the person says "Shop x" and they are know _not_ to stock that brand of bike, it would be an opening to question further to see if there are other holes in the background story.



Bike: JE James, Edinburgh Bicycle Co-Operative and an old bike given to me (it's made from 3 bikes at the moment)
Trike: eBay

and when my tourer gets rebuilt as a tourer again with a clean, decal-free frame...have I deliberately painted the frame to avoid it being identified as stolen?

Either could ring alarm bells...if this initiative spreads I'm glad I can walk in my cycling shoes when my transport gets confiscated....


----------



## doog (17 Oct 2011)

PK99 said:


> no he isn't , :
> 
> 
> http://www.homeoffic...top-and-search/
> ...



This isnt a power. Stop and account is simply a term used to describe the stopping of individuals in cases where stop/ search cannot be justified and usually follows the commission of an offence in the vicinity or similar, certainly not random stops of cyclists. It was made up to put a name on a practice that fell outside of any legislation.

You simply cannot randomly stop cyclists without a power ie the Road Traffic Act. You cannot stop them to clarify if their bicycle is stolen unless you have reasonable suspicion that it is stolen at the time you make that decision to stop them.

If you seize their bike because you suspect it may be stolen then there are reasonable grounds to suspect the person riding it has committed an offence of theft or handling so they should be arrested. If you dont arrest them then do you honestly think the the bike is stolen? No - in that case should it be seized- No.

Looks like this thread has stalled but having doubted the 'doubters' I can see where some of them are coming from.


----------



## nilling (17 Oct 2011)

<snip> For instance, a man who is riding a woman’s bike or a child’s bike will be stopped as that instantly rouses suspicion.


Seems fair enough 








If I'd got stopped I'd become *Calum Gilhooley *about my bike!


----------



## Crankarm (17 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> This isnt a power. Stop and account is simply a term used to describe the stopping of individuals in cases where stop/ search cannot be justified and usually follows the commission of an offence in the vicinity or similar, certainly not random stops of cyclists. It was made up to put a name on a practice that fell outside of any legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hallejulah, praise the good Lord!


----------



## PK99 (17 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> This isnt a power. Stop and account is simply a term used to describe the stopping of individuals in cases where stop/ search cannot be justified and usually follows the commission of an offence in the vicinity or similar, certainly not random stops of cyclists. l



CAB advice is:


*Stop and account*
The police can stop anyone in a public place and ask you to account for yourself. For example, you could be asked to account for your actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of anything. When the police stop you and ask you for an explanation, you don't need to provide your personal details. The police do not have to make a record or give you a receipt. But you may be asked to give your ethnicity.

...

There is no suggestion anywhere of random stops, as noted several times in the thread, "something out of place or unusual" would trigger a stop.




....




I presume that if the "account" is not satisfactory the interaction would move beyond "stop and account"


----------



## doog (17 Oct 2011)

PK99 said:


> CAB advice is:
> 
> 
> *Stop and account*
> ...





I appreciate that you are quoting from the CAB but so called stop and account does require some modicum of an offence having occurred or about to be committed etc, which is why I dont believe they are or should be using it for this operation.

If jimmy was riding a pink pinarello that would justify being stopped under pace, if someone was seen late at night in a street suffering from burglaries that would justify stopping and talking to the bloke.


The main issue is that some detractors on here have indicated that they would refuse to stop. Refusing to stop and account for yourself is not an offence, it may be construed as obstruction however it is important to note that unless the Police have reasonable suspicion that the bike is stolen before they stop you they would be struggling to justify stopping you.

This is how civil claims arise. Mr total innocent riding home from work is randomly stopped for no reason other than to check his bike out. By relying on stop and account he can refuse to stop. The Police would then need a *power* to physically stop him. They would resort to Section 1 PACE (Stop search) and have to suspect the bike was stolen before probably stopping him by force. 

Now why would the Police suddenly suspect Mr Total innocents bike was stolen just because he refused to stop under a power that doesnt actually exist in law.

I'm just breaking things down here, not trying to cause problems. I fully support pro- active operations by the police but now I am scratching beneath the surface I can understand why, should this go wrong, Preston Police may find themselves on the receiving end of a civil claim either for wrongful arrest or unlawful seizure of property if it caused the owner loss (ie couldnt get to work etc) 

Thats all


----------



## Zoiders (17 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576851"]
If I go to Preston and ride around on my mtb, how are the local coppers in Preston going to know if The Bicycle Chain in Bridgwater stock Trek?

This initiative is just too full of holes.
[/quote]If only there was some magical device that allowed a person to project his or her voice over hundreds of miles...we could call it a "speech box" or "telesonic projector". 

If only we lived in a realm of science fiction - until then it's back to the good old fashioned police whistle and runners carrying messages for the magistrate to fetch the horse troopers to put down a riot down by the old salt docks.


----------



## PK99 (17 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> If jimmy was riding a pink pinarello that would justify being stopped under pace,





and that is the context of the current scheme - as has been pointed out and referenced by several posters.

there is no program of random stops


for info the met police guidance on stop and search is here>>>>http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/what_is.htm


----------



## doog (17 Oct 2011)

PK99 said:


> and that is the context of the current scheme - as has been pointed out and referenced by several posters.
> 
> *there is no program of random stops*
> 
> ...



Is it stop or stop/ search?

From the Met Site 

The police officer or police community support officer must explain why you are being stopped and held to account *for your actions or presence in an area.*


That is not an excuse to stop a cyclist to check if his bike is stolen unless you suspect it is stolen. There is no practical way of stopping cyclists in a controlled operation other than mass or random stops. 

The stop legislation clearly states you must account for your actions or presence in an area - clearly this doesnt apply . That leaves stop / search which means they must suspect the bike is stolen when they stop them as Preston Police cannot simply pull a bike over without this suspicion.

If 17 bikes were seized why no arrests? Handling?*
*


----------



## Zoiders (17 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576860"]
I've just rung Sidwell Cycles in Exeter to see if they stock Trek. Unfortunately it appears to be shut, so your sarcastic reply appears not to have even less going for it than the original concept we are discussing. 

Unless of course all bike shops become compelled to list their stock on the answering machine. Ummm could work I suppose. So Zoiders, do you impound my bike or not?
[/quote]If only there was a magic box that projects images and pages of text upon command as well.


----------



## PK99 (17 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> That is not an excuse to stop a cyclist to check if his bike is stolen unless you suspect it is stolen.



There has been no suggestion that the Preston operation is random stops - have you read the top post in the thread:

>>>

*Targeting riders*
Police officers are of course not stopping every cyclist out riding their bike. People are only stopped from riding their bikes if an officer believes that the bike could be stolen, Lancashire Police told us. For instance, a man who is riding a woman’s bike or a child’s bike will be stopped as that instantly rouses suspicion.







> There is no practical way of stopping cyclists in a controlled operation other than mass or random stops.


 


is that so?


Iif one of the scrotes who make Wimbledon town centre a very dodgy place to park bikes were to nick mine (not likely as i never leave it there for fear of said scrotes and the experience of too many friends) and was spotted on an SPD clad Van Nicholas that most likely was far too big for him and he was wearing trainers, i would like to think that an observant police officer might think that a tad strange and ask to have a word. And if i popped out to the shop wearing trainers (again unlikely) and was stopped for the same reason, I'd have no problem.


----------



## PK99 (17 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> That is not an excuse to stop a cyclist to check if his bike is stolen unless you suspect it is stolen.



There has been no suggestion that the Preston operation is random stops - have you read the top post in the thread:

>>>

*Targeting riders*
Police officers are of course not stopping every cyclist out riding their bike. People are only stopped from riding their bikes if an officer believes that the bike could be stolen, Lancashire Police told us. For instance, a man who is riding a woman’s bike or a child’s bike will be stopped as that instantly rouses suspicion.







> There is no practical way of stopping cyclists in a controlled operation other than mass or random stops.


 


is that so?


Iif one of the scrotes who make Wimbledon town centre a very dodgy place to park bikes were to nick mine (not likely as i never leave it there for fear of said scrotes and the experience of too many friends) and was spotted on an SPD clad Van Nicholas that most likely was far too big for him and he was wearing trainers, i would like to think that an observant police officer might think that a tad strange and ask to have a word. And if i popped out to the shop wearing trainers (again unlikely) and was stopped for the same reason, I'd have no problem.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (17 Oct 2011)

Guess I'll have to stop riding around in a Breton jersey and carrying that sack with "swag" written on it...


----------



## doog (17 Oct 2011)

PK99 said:


> There has been no suggestion that the Preston operation is random stops - have you read the top post in the thread:
> 
> >>>
> 
> ...




here is a fact for you. Many burglars wear Reebok classics. Police dont go around stopping everyone in Reebok classics. 

Think about it






As I said....no powers to stop and 17 bikes seized should equate to 17 arrests unless those officers were on a 'fishing trip'.


----------



## Zoiders (17 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576867"]
"No officer, I got it in that bike shop in Brighton, can't remember the name"

"OK sonnymylad, I'll just get on my iphone and look up the bike shops in Brighton. Now where abouts was the bike shop?" 

"It was by the station, I think."

"Right we have 4 showing in the..hold on, the signals dropped. No, it's back, now which of these 4 was..hold on, it's dropped again. Ah, no it's back, now was it ..........."

Yeah, that should work a treat, don't see any problems there 

Remember, we are dealing with average Joe Copper, the very same ilk that didn't interview Harold Shipman because they thought a Dr wouldn't kill people, the ones who got Ian Huntley to help with the chairs for the press conferences without noticing he was a psychopathic double child killer, who interviewed Peter Sutcliffe and let him go....twice, and who arrested a bloke in Bristol on suspicion of murder because he looked odd!

Personally I look forward to the national roll-out of this campaign, along with the twin initiative of the "If you aren't wearing a helmet you must have nicked the bike, and if you are we'll have you for going equipped" Campaign.
[/quote]Blah blah blah User76 - this isn't a pedantry competition.

Failing to provide a reasonable excuse the copper can then take it further, as in taking the bike and making him/her provide more details, then they can take all of 5 minutes to follow up on the story provided.

You can make up all the impossible scenarios you like but it's a workable system.


----------



## Norm (17 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576869"] It's a nonsense idea. [/quote] What, to suggest that they'd be confiscating bikes if they couldn't call a bike shop at 9pm? 

Yes, you are right, but then it's not the worst one on this thread.


----------



## snorri (17 Oct 2011)

OK, so User76 thinks that each and every police officer is a numpty, can we move on now please?


----------



## totallyfixed (17 Oct 2011)

To any police officer that is reading this thread who has randomly stopped a scrote and recovered a bike, or knows of a colleague who has done so, I am at a loss to understand what is going on here. There are things the police do I don't always agree with, this is not one of them.
I would be pleased to be stopped by the police and asked about the bike I was riding, what is more I would go further and offer to report anything that I strongly suspected to be stolen.

21 pages


----------



## Vikeonabike (18 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576869"]

Do you honestly believe that the average copper knows what an spd pedal looks like? Or if a bike is worth £50, £500 or £5000 ?
[/quote]




Not a chance....the majority of cops couldn't tell a top of the range bike form a Tesco BSO. Unless you actually have an interest..Personally I couldn't tell a ming vase from a cheap taiwanse fake...Bet they wouldn't be happy knowing that on www.Antiqueschat.net


----------



## MontyVeda (18 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576869"]
...

Do you honestly believe that the average copper knows what an spd pedal looks like? Or if a bike is worth £50, £500 or £5000 ?
[/quote]

this is a true story...

A girl goes missing, probably a runaway so the police go round her known 'haunts' to see if she's staying at any of them. copper visits a certain house to ask the occupants if they know the whereabouts of said girl, they don't. however the copper does notice an Orange Clockwork parked in the hall and thinks "that bike's a bit too nice for this house" so he calls it in. No bike matching that description has been reported stolen, but a bike matching that description has been registered/post-coded with the police, so they ring the owner of the registered Clockwork Orange. 

enter my mate John... who has no idea his bike has been stolen from his shed until the police ring him. 

It was his bike and just because a policeman officer thought "that doesn't look right", a stolen bike was recovered. In my mind this is an example of good pro-active police work.


----------



## Norm (18 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576875"]
Bloody hell Norm, read Zoiders suggestion. He has suggested to establish ownership, the copper would ring the bike shop or Google them. If it's late, or the shop is shut or they have no handy iphone then how?
[/quote]
Sorry I thought it was obvious but my point was that they are unlikely to be doing a targeted campaign which includes asking riders to name their LBS at 9 o'clock in the evening.


----------



## JamieRegan (18 Oct 2011)

Maybe this highlights to all of us that we can't prove we own our bikes and in order to crack down on genuine theft, there should be some system in place where we could.

When you buy a new tv, you have to give your name and address now so that they can check you have a tv licence. Perhaps there's something similar that could be done along with a stamp on the frame. I remember when I was a kid, the police came to our school and stamped your postcode on the frame of your bike. 

You could have a voluntary registration for second hand or hand built bikes.


----------



## diapason (18 Oct 2011)

When I was a kid, there used to be a card which you could fill in with the details of your bike and hand in to the nick. It was 'marketed' under the moniker of 'Willie Snatchitt'


----------



## snorri (18 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576874"]
Er no, User76 thinks that most Police officers wouldn't know an spd from a Look Delta from an Asda flat pedal.[/quote]



Most cyclists wouldn't know the difference either, does it matter? A detailed knowledge of every bike component is not essential in order to detect cycle related crime.


----------



## Zoiders (18 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576875"]
Bloody hell Norm, read Zoiders suggestion. He has suggested to establish ownership, the copper would ring the bike shop or Google them. If it's late, or the shop is shut or they have no handy iphone then how?
[/quote]All coppers carry a phone capable of receiveing email, they are also connected by that phone to other officers who have access to other computers.

They are never ever out of coms, either on line or by voice traffic, they can check your story out sharpish, even if it's just to confirm that the shop even exists.

It's exactly the same as if they did a persons known check on you if they suspected you of something - which would most probably be the next step for all the gobby pedants this thread has attracted if they were ever pulled over.


----------



## MontyVeda (18 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1576882"]
You are blinded by your desire for this to work. You are suggesting that a copper on the ground, gets in touch with a copper in a control room, to check if a certain bike shop stocks a certain bike. If they do, you carry on, if they don't they confiscate your bike.

Think about it man. Where does it stop? Will you be asked to prove where you got your posh smartphone, your nice suit, your car, your laptop? Why focus on bikes? More phones are nicked than bikes, focus on smartphone users I say.
[/quote]

There's hypothesising, theorising and plain old making up scenarios on both side of this discussion.

It could also be argued that certain posters may also be blinded by their insistence that we either live in, or are a mere stones-throw away from a police state.


----------



## Silver Fox (18 Oct 2011)

Well I hope the bobbies stop and check the little shoots that ram raided my garage overnight and stole my Yeti 575 and the g'f's Trek 4900 ( see Stolen Bikes section ).

Any short arse riding the Yeti will stand out like a sore thumb on the XL frame, but then again it's probably been stripped for parts already or on flea bay somewhere.

Bike thieves, may they all poo hedgehogs then die a long horrible painful death.


----------



## Stuart Tanner (28 Nov 2011)

I have 2 older mtb's and no receipts, i know for a fact they are not stolen but purchased by myself and restored to former glory.
would this mean i would love my bikes if stopped?
i can afford to buy a bike new from a shop as i got 5 kiddies and no bloody job at the moment so choose to source second hand and restore.

This has got me worried i have never been stopped by the police yet but dreading the day i do.


----------



## Cubist (28 Nov 2011)

Stuart, don't worry, despite some fairly committed scare-mongering on here, you will not lose your bike if you are stopped by the police. A few simple questions and answers are all that it will take to show them you are genuine. (tin hat at the ready, but I'm not all that troubled!)

Top bit of thread-mining by the way, chapeau.


----------



## StuartG (28 Nov 2011)

I don't see the problem. Proof of ownership is not the issue. All they want to know is it isn't stolen which is fine by me. We don't carry receipts around but most bikes carry a frame number. Offer that up and that should be fine. Provided the police have a decent database of bikes stolen that is ...


----------



## ColinJ (28 Nov 2011)

4867715 - that's my frame number. Unfortunately, it is the number of the bike which I had stolen from my school bike sheds in 1968! (It's really annoying remembering stupid information which is no longer of use, but forgetting current information which would be!)


----------



## Stuart Tanner (29 Nov 2011)

The police are welcome to my frame numbers nothing to hide there , both my mtb have been repainted one matt black i alway's thought to myself it looks a bit dodgy lol.
I suppose any bike thief worth there salt would just grind the frame number off.


----------

