FPN for carrying child on bike

[Angelfishsolo]

And this is how the police sometimes work

"The judge decided that the police officer's evidence lacked credibility"

P.S He has no right of appeal unfortunately. Appeals cannot be heard on matters of fact, only of process, unless new evidence has come to light that was not available at the time. Since he has pleaded guilty and the legal situation on adapted bikes for two was available even if the defendant didn't know it, he has no chance in getting an appeal allowed.

You above all know that there are exceptions to rules. If we are to take the approach you are eluding to then we may as well do away with the Police altogether.

So can he not appeal or does his appeal stand no chance of being allowed? I was under the impression that any decision could be appealed.

 

[Red Light]

You above all know that there are exceptions to rules. If we are to take the approach you are eluding to then we may as well do away with the Police altogether.

I agree and it tends to be the exceptions that hit the headlines. This one seems to me very much to be one of those exceptions of a numpty bobby who got a little to corrupted by power. Bit like the Daniel Cadden ones.

So can he not appeal or does his appeal stand no chance of being allowed? I was under the impression that any decision could be appealed.

As he's pleaded guilty the only thing that can be appealed is the sentence as the case was never heard. He has to lodge an appeal within 21 days of the sentence.

 

[Norm]

You above all know that there are exceptions to rules. If we are to take the approach you are eluding to then we may as well do away with the Police altogether.

Is this not the exact opposite to your stance in the RLJ thread?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Is this not the exact opposite to your stance in the RLJ thread?

Er No. I am saying that occasionally the Police make mistakes. Red Light seems to suggest that they are constantly at fault and are of no benefit to us.

Can you walk me through your logic (or did you think I actually meant Do away with the Police - If so I was being factious!)

 

[Norm]

I didn't reference the Police in my post, but you could misinterpret it that way.

Your position in the RLJ thread is that it's illegal so it's wrong and your post which I quoted above says that there are exceptions to rule.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I didn't reference the Police in my post, but you could misinterpret it that way.

Your position in the RLJ thread is that it's illegal so it's wrong and your post which I quoted above says that there are exceptions to rule.

To the rules when it comes to the Police getting it right. Look at the context in which that statement was made please.

 

[Red Light]

Er No. I am saying that occasionally the Police make mistakes. Red Light seems to suggest that they are constantly at fault and are of no benefit to us.

Where did I suggest that?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Where did I suggest that?

You do it every time you highlight a case were the Police are at fault.

 

[Red Light]

You do it every time you highlight a case were the Police are at fault.

Perhaps you could point to where I did that in this thread then.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Perhaps you could point to where I did that in this thread then.

Take this as an example

And this is how the police sometimes work

"The judge decided that the police officer's evidence lacked credibility"

 

[twobiker]

Take this as an example

And this is how the police sometimes work

"The judge decided that the police officer's evidence lacked credibility"

These are two different cases, in one, rlj , the light is red you ride across you break the law, in 2nd the case revolved around who the officer believed a supposedly frightened man locked in his car or two angry and aggresive men shouting at him, one is cut and dried the other is not.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

These are two different cases, in one, rlj , the light is red you ride across you break the law, in 2nd the case revolved around who the officer believed a supposedly frightened man locked in his car or two angry and aggresive men shouting at him, one is cut and dried the other is not.

Exactly but Red Light insists upon quoting such cases when the law is brought up.

 

[Red Light]

Er No. I am saying that occasionally the Police make mistakes. Red Light seems to suggest that they are constantly at fault and are of no benefit to us.

Take this as an example

And this is how the police sometimes work

"The judge decided that the police officer's evidence lacked credibility"

I suggest you pop out and buy yourself a dictionary and use it to look up the meanings of "constantly", "sometimes" and "occasionally"

 

[Red Light]

These are two different cases, in one, rlj , the light is red you ride across you break the law, in 2nd the case revolved around who the officer believed a supposedly frightened man locked in his car or two angry and aggresive men shouting at him, one is cut and dried the other is not.

And in the 2nd case the officers still went on with their initial "belief" despite the witness evidence etc and took the cyclists to Court based on evidence the Judge said "lacked credibility" and that was contrary to the evidence the witnesses and even the supposed victim gave.

There was a very similar case last year on Oxford St where the police did the cyclist who had been knocked of his bike and strangled to unconsciousness by a taxi driver. The police handcuffed the cyclist despite clear signs of him having been strangled and sent away a volunteer witness without even taking his details. The witness wrote an account of what had happened and delivered it to the police the next day who conveniently ignored it and took the cyclist to Court anyway. Sometimes the behaviour of the police towards cyclists is shockingly poor.

 

[twobiker]

And in the 2nd case the officers still went on with their initial "belief" despite the witness evidence etc and took the cyclists to Court based on evidence the Judge said "lacked credibility" and that was contrary to the evidence the witnesses and even the supposed victim gave.

There was a very similar case last year on Oxford St where the police did the cyclist who had been knocked of his bike and strangled to unconsciousness by a taxi driver. The police handcuffed the cyclist despite clear signs of him having been strangled and sent away a volunteer witness without even taking his details. The witness wrote an account of what had happened and delivered it to the police the next day who conveniently ignored it and took the cyclist to Court anyway. Sometimes the behaviour of the police towards cyclists is shockingly poor.

And yet who would you call if you were in danger, not Ghostbusters, the Police, they have to respond to a multitude of different cases every day and as they are only human they can, get it wrong, but choose between them and the alternative, remember the recent riots, innocent people being burnt out of their livelihoods, the Police have to stand there and take the flak.