A crushing blow

[att]

A generation that compares the nazi invasion of Poland to the crushing of a motorbike used illegally - is a trifle over reactive

Terminus

It is not over reaction, it is merely being aware and when you have so many new laws in the last 9 years of this Govt. it kinda makes you think a little deeper, study events past and where they led to.

You cannot turn a blind eye or blame it on the failing of others to adhere to laws already in force, the blame is squarely laid at the door of corrupt and very greedy members of the Govt. and not just MP`s, but all their advisors and the cronies that stand to make lot`s of money from the PUBLIC PURSE.
Social Policy in this country has sucked for years and can only worsen over the next decades, they see it, so do we.

[rangerider]

Politically I am caught in the middle. I am well aware of the intricacies of many recent laws from an unusual perspective.

I am sure I read somewhere that the current Govt. had brought in more new laws than any other by some considerable margin. I am also aware that many of these laws are at best silly and impracticable, and at worse un-enforcable.

The current incumbents seem all to happy to draw up a kneejerk law in reaction to any focus or pressure group that comes knocking at the door. A prime example (one that affects us as motorists & CB users) is that of using a mobile phone whilst driving. Personally (and I know of several traffic cops that agree) it was my understanding there were already several offences that a driver could be charged with where using a mobile phone (cb/whatever) had the potential to create a problem. The new law only makes it an offence at any time, previously there were charges such as drving without due care, and failing to maintain proper control. both of which apply to CB users too where the new law seems by all accounts to exempt such things. Even in the late 80's Essex traffic cars had a hands free system for the radios for these legal & safety reasons.

Many new laws have been written so vaguely with such blanket coverage our courts will be forever trying to unentangle them. Take gloryfying terrorism, best head to Leeds and tear down that nice new statue of Mandela then!

The legislation that this post originally reffered too as Terminus quite rightly says contains an awful lot of sections that at first glance (and even 2nd & 3rd) contain nothing to do with serious & organised crime. (defining serious crime is for another day :) - if I'm the victim its serious!).

Its a simple ploy used throughout the ages, no different from revealing bad news when the media are concentrating on a bigger issue, after all what MP is going to vote against anything that purports to be against serious crime/terrorism/peadophilia/insert nasty thing here. So the writers just slip in little bits here and there, perhaps at the very last minute.  I doubt many MPs read the laws they vote for, and I suspect that any that do lack the ability to effectively understand what they have read.

In short, I regularly deal with some apects of human rights, civil liberties, serious crime & terrorism legislation and am well aware that many "basic rights" have been removed by stealth, with the few remaining to follow. Unfortunately the magna carta was never really enshrined in law the way the US constitution was, and even that has been eroded in recent years.

There are legal and simple ways to bring the castle crashing down by using purely legal methods :)

Having stood many times on both sides of this argument I could go on for hours (Yes I can see you yawning in the back there) - but this was supposed to be about off-roading.


So to the original point, as it was quoted to me (and Im way too lazy to look it up), before seizing the bike for crushing, the offender must be warned to cease & desist, and it is only when the offence continues, or it is believed that the offence may continue/be repeated then the vehicle may be seized.

In the original news story we hear only one side of the argument. Nowhere do we hear how often has this happened, did the youth give the attending police some attitude? had he been asked politely to leave by others? had he already been officialy warned by an officer about his actions & the possible consequences?

Personally I doubt very much that the incident quoted was a "one-off", but simply the end of a long-lived saga.

[Karen696]

Just to stick my two-pennorth in.

I think it appears VERY harsh on the information given, but as it has been stated we only heard one side of the story.

However I do wonder what the reaction on this site would be if it was some poor chap who had accidentally strayed off a BOAT, onto a bridleway and was faced with having his Land Rover/Suzuki/Mitsubishi/whatever 4x4 crushed without appeal?

But there again 'its all right 'cos its a motorcycle' is the attitude too many seem to be promoting.

[Terminus]

Just to stick my two-pennorth in.

I think it appears VERY harsh on the information given, but as it has been stated we only heard one side of the story.

However I do wonder what the reaction on this site would be if it was some poor chap who had accidentally strayed off a BOAT, onto a bridleway and was faced with having his Land Rover/Suzuki/Mitsubishi/whatever 4x4 crushed without appeal?

But there again 'its all right 'cos its a motorcycle' is the attitude too many seem to be promoting.

The issue here isn't really that he strayed off the road that alone would be unlikely to result in crushing - it was a trials bike not suitable for the road, therefore uninsured, untaxed etc - the owner would be clearly aware of the limitations of use of such a vehicle (as with mini moto's), especially as he only uses it on a track himself and should not have loaned it to a young lad to go off and play on where he pleased.  Things don't just get crushed because you leave the beaten path.  That is where the point is blurring - you wouldn't be driving your 4x4 (well i rather hope not) anywhere uninsured untaxed or mot'd or (again I would like to hope) lend it in such an undocumented state to a 17 yr old to drive around.

Had the young lad taken it where he was caught without consent he would be charged with theft and the bike would not have been crushed but as it was the owner has assumed responsibility by saying yes he gave it to the lad and so - squish  :shock:

People have a certain amount of personal responsibility for the result of their actions - Ignorance of the law (as any sheriff or judge in the land will be the very first to tell you) is not an excuse.

I don't like using the ignorance of the law is not an excuse line because it sounds harsh but it has to be - or where would you stop "oh sorry I was curious as to what would happen - didn't realise that if I pressed the stop button on that mans life support machine it was murder" (a melodramatic example but used simply to illustrate the meaning of my point)

It's an emotive issue and any issue that involves the law, peoples understanding of the law and how it impacts them and those around them always will be - but Police do not as hinted at in earlier comments just "stick one on you" because they have a bad day - even the Police have to prove their actions were just if an appeal or complaint comes in and paying the mortgage and enjoying life is way more important than just "getting someone" on a bad day.

It'll be one of those never ending debates - there will be give and take but little resolution.  I still hold that the fascist and nazi comparison bit is way over the top and that "in my eyes" to use it in comparison to the debate here rather belittles true attrocities and events that have occured in the past.

"look a badger with a gun" *points to the corner* and runs off out of the forum door whilst everyone is looking round :lol:

[att]

To use the Nazi references etc. in no way belittles the suffering that many endured, it is merely being used as reference to what may happen if these things go unchecked.......It is, as I have stated previously an awareness of the current state of affairs, if you have failed to learn from history, no matter what the scale may be, you have failed.

Now, about the forcing of democracy on Muslims........

[Terminus]

To use the Nazi references etc. in no way belittles the suffering that many endured, it is merely being used as reference to what may happen if these things go unchecked.......It is, as I have stated previously an awareness of the current state of affairs, if you have failed to learn from history, no matter what the scale may be, you have failed.

Now, about the forcing of democracy on Muslims........

uh oh was it a muslim bike? or a christian owner? or a buddhist 17 year old?    :lol:

we were discussing the crushing of a bike here and the rights or wrongs as some may feel of the matter - but I'm sure when you put fuel in your car you appologise out loud for any ill doing which was caused during its production or when you drink your coffee you feel compelled to write a letter to the third world producers who the first world market makes unviable, or loath yourself when you buy something produced from the very wood which poor countries are now not allowed to cut down (the rainforrest) even though the first world countries originally made billions on it - next you'll tell me you've placed a convertor on your posterior to reduce any methane gas emissions.

The world is full of rights and wrongs and I'm not going to set about debating them all- but then that wasn't what we were talking about in the first place.

Yes yes I know you're going to rebutt this with but the law is a draconian thing designed to infringe your rights and thereby eat away at your freedom and enslave you then rule you outright and become a facist state then .... I'm not sure where your point will end -

but this I am sure of - the law is not just there to make someones life hell - it's there because it has to be because without it your life would be hell - in fact in many cases a lot shorter -

If you're going to get all philosophical on me at what price is freedom? are you free? what is freedom? and if you truly had absolute freedom to do what you wanted, for things to be the way you wanted them every second of your day, for there to be nothing governing you or holding in check the desires and inhibit the urges of mankind - would that be freedom? Nope it's called anarchy and I doubt it would be an improvement.

It's the human condition to complain about what we have and what we don't have and right and wrong are just sides of a coin seen from different perspectives.

Now that we've moved from the point of the motorbike the 17 year old and the uncle - I'm out.  Although I am quite happy and impressed we all managed 5 pages of conflicting opinion without for the most part poking each other in the eyes  or pointing a finger and saying "he smells"  :lol:  maybe there's hope for us yet    :lol:  :lol:

[Skibum346]

**Points finger at TERMINUS...**


You smell.....!


 :twisted:  :twisted:  :twisted:
 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[Range Rover Blues]

If only they would take the same 'hard line' when they catch someone exiting through a window with a laptop under their arm.  It seems that 'law abiding' citizens who stray outside the law get punished far more harshly than ricidevists.

[Dirty Gertie]

Well, personally, I'd LOVE to see the little s*it's who insist on riding their irritating little 2 strokes around the local streets where I work, and the park behind my workplace; crushed themselves, let alone their little 'buzz machines' - they ride them ON the road; no helmets, no licences (they are too young!!) etc; but the most worrying thing is they have NO SKILL, NO AWARENESS and they do not give a damn!! These idiots come shooting out of side streets with complete disregard for rights of way, bigger, heavier vehicles etc; they are brain-deads who soon, no doubt, will become completely dead! The trouble is, it will be some innocent motorist who is then subjected to the (personal, not judicial) guilt of killing a prat who should NEVER have been on the road in the first place!!
Less of the bleeding hearts guys, we have road traffic laws, most of us comply with them, and it costs us a lot of dosh; one rule for all; end of story!!!

[att]

To use the Nazi references etc. in no way belittles the suffering that many endured, it is merely being used as reference to what may happen if these things go unchecked.......It is, as I have stated previously an awareness of the current state of affairs, if you have failed to learn from history, no matter what the scale may be, you have failed.

Now, about the forcing of democracy on Muslims........

uh oh was it a muslim bike? or a christian owner? or a buddhist 17 year old?    :lol:

we were discussing the crushing of a bike here and the rights or wrongs as some may feel of the matter - Although I am quite happy and impressed we all managed 5 pages of conflicting opinion without for the most part poking each other in the eyes  or pointing a finger and saying "he smells"  :lol:  maybe there's hope for us yet    :lol:  :lol:

I too, am most impressed with the conduct of the posters on this topic.

It is nice to be on a forum where there is no need for things to get too personal, and where people are not constantly picking up bad spelling.

I have been a member of many forums where such a debate would have descended into petty name calling and worse.

I would just like to say thankyou for the understanding and tolerence that has been shown for what I have posted, it is nice to agree to disagree without the personal and analytical stuff that occurs on many forums on the net.

[Xtremeteam]

Any one for a brew??

[Bulli]

Had a few already!! :oops:

I thought this would have keeled over on its own by now but there is clearly a lot of feeling about this subject.
 Personally I think the granting of this punishment is brilliant...if they ever bother to come over and stop the little scrotes that ride on the filed behing my house i will be extremely grateful!

I too like MC because it doesnt get personal and people are keen to try and see the others viewpoints - thats what makes it the nicest forum out there.

[Karen696]

Sorry Bully, but have you ever considered joining the Ramblers? - THEY tar us (ie 4x4) all with the same brush and insist it is right and proper..... like the road safety campaign tries to say 'think!'

Get a grip

there is right and wrong to every story - 'cos its a two-stroke' doesn't hit me as a valid argument.

I personally hate the [unpleasent fellows] in fiestas who drive up and down our road and would love to see all of them crushed..... lots of fiesta drivers would argue that they are perfectly safe and sensible........

I also hate volvos.... but I am told that is a legacy of when a drove a bike every day in every weather....

[Manicminer]

there is right and wrong to every story - 'cos its a two-stroke' doesn't hit me as a valid argument.

It's not about being a 'two stroke', it's about riding an illegal bike on a public road. If he was driving an illegal Fiesta then that would have suffered the same fate.

If you leave your 4x4 on the street with no tax then that will get crushed too.

[quoman]

Heavy handed and out of order.
Thats the trouble with this bloody country.
Get caught burgling a house and you get a slap on the wrists.

In each and every case I now take the law into my own hands.
<EDIT> :roll:

The tide will soon turn and unfortunately the Police will bear the brunt of the publics anger.

I am usually a law biding citizen, but the many new laws coming in make me want to break them more and more.

Totalitarian State is here.

I just hope all the folks who agree with this sort of heavy handed response agree with it when they are on the end of it through no fault of their own, just a simple mistake can lead to this....We are not all perfect and do not know all the laws of the land.

Do we really want the UK to be homogonised?.....The spirit of the people controlled completely.....I don`t think so, but we are going down the path at an alarming rate of knots.

 you are so wrong here,both the owner and his couson knew they were breaking the law,but like the minority of youngsters who think they are abive the law,they spoil it for the majority.
I say crush the bike and ban both from owning any vehicle 2/4 wheels for a set period of time.
This action will not stop these or any law breakers,but hopefully this sort of action will make some think twice and not do it.
By the way,from your response i hope you are not affected by these law breakers one day

[Bulli]

Karen, ive got a grip. I live in the real world but your arguament ...after clearly not bothering to read all the previous posts is silly.

You would like to ban people from driving near you who have a valid driving licence , insurance and have paid their road fund licence....dont think thats likely.
Lets start at the top shall we.
1st The fiesta driver has shown his proficiecy to drive that vehicle by passing a far more difficult test than i did - the 17 year old has taken no test.
2nd. he is insured so if he has an accident the insurerers will pay for any material damage - again the 17 year old was not.
3rd his vehicle is roadworthy ..has an mot. - The 250 crosser cannot pass an mot. It has no light / indicators/ exceeds the legal level for noise.

so me saying i would like the kids who arent old enough to drive/ride stopped from riding illegal bikes on public land is the same as me living on cloud nine and wanting to be a rambler????

karen take a look in the mirror. Its intolerance like yours that causes the friction in society. I merely said im all for law breakers being punished - you want lawful people stopped...would my loud v8 exhaust be ok on your road....because its a landrover?
The problem with the RA is that they do have a blanket view, but so do we to an extent.
So please b4 you talk rubbish , read what people have clearly given thought to b4 you try to be accusatory and downright rude.

Oh and im not an exbiker ...i ride nearly every day , ive commuted for over 15 years by motorbike and push iron.

[Bob696]

you are so wrong here,both the owner and his couson knew they were breaking the law

The problem I have with this is not the punishment but how the punishment was arrived at.
In this case it is not clear if they DID know they were breaking the law, it is not clear who the witnesses were etc etc. It all comes down to the judgment of ONE man/woman who is only human. That person has decided they are guilty and has decided the punishment. It is a very slippy slope we are on.

Imagine a chief constable who is the member of the RA or friends with a local big wig land owner. He tells all his officers that they will operate a zero tolerence against all "off roaders". Joe in his 90 (gettit?) take a wrong turn off a BOAT onto an old RUPP and PC Greasypoleclimber is there waiting. Joe then has the problem of going to court or appeal to try and get his 90 back with little chance of success as he WAS in the strictess sense breaking the law.
As the law did stand Joe would get to keep his 90 (assuming the PC was satisfied he had correctly identified himself) The PC would then refer it to the CPS who would make a judgment on whether to go to court. In court the CPS would then have to prove he was breaking the law. The judge would then (if found guilty) lay down a sentence that was proportanal to the crime. In the above scenario I doubt it would involve crushing.

A quick fix to the problems and annoyances you are facing is always appealing but the ramifications can be astounding when thought about. Remeber that YOU will be annoyance/problem to somebody else. It might be something simple such as playing your CD player a bit loud after 8pm or your garden isnt immaculate all the time or your m8 parks his car outside their house when he visits etc etc All it takes is that this person knows the law and knows a friendly bobby.
It is all too easy to argue that a law will "never be used that way" but given time it can and probably will.

[Terminus]

**Points finger at TERMINUS...**


You smell.....!


 :twisted:  :twisted:  :twisted:
 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Yeah? whats your point :?:   :P  :P  :P  :P  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[quoman]

you are so wrong here,both the owner and his couson knew they were breaking the law

The problem I have with this is not the punishment but how the punishment was arrived at.
In this case it is not clear if they DID know they were breaking the law, it is not clear who the witnesses were etc etc. It all comes down to the judgment of ONE man/woman who is only human. That person has decided they are guilty and has decided the punishment. It is a very slippy slope we are on.

Imagine a chief constable who is the member of the RA or friends with a local big wig land owner. He tells all his officers that they will operate a zero tolerence against all "off roaders". Joe in his 90 (gettit?) take a wrong turn off a BOAT onto an old RUPP and PC Greasypoleclimber is there waiting. Joe then has the problem of going to court or appeal to try and get his 90 back with little chance of success as he WAS in the strictess sense breaking the law.
As the law did stand Joe would get to keep his 90 (assuming the PC was satisfied he had correctly identified himself) The PC would then refer it to the CPS who would make a judgment on whether to go to court. In court the CPS would then have to prove he was breaking the law. The judge would then (if found guilty) lay down a sentence that was proportanal to the crime. In the above scenario I doubt it would involve crushing.

A quick fix to the problems and annoyances you are facing is always appealing but the ramifications can be astounding when thought about. Remeber that YOU will be annoyance/problem to somebody else. It might be something simple such as playing your CD player a bit loud after 8pm or your garden isnt immaculate all the time or your m8 parks his car outside their house when he visits etc etc All it takes is that this person knows the law and knows a friendly bobby.
It is all too easy to argue that a law will "never be used that way" but given time it can and probably will.

 At the back of my sisters house lies a unused railline,obviously now with no tracks,there is also a long tunnel(3-400 yrds long)kids on these bikes constantly make a pest of themselves by riding up and down at all hrs(can you imagine the noise inside the tunnel).
this deadline is used(legaly)by famillys and dog walkers,I stick with what i said earlier.
 People have allready had the warning,the police are right to carry out the law.
If anyone is in a legal vehicle and accidently makes a wrong turn i dont think they need to fear the law. But if anyone is in a illegal vehicle(car or bike)then i think they SHOULD fear the law.At the moment they dont.

[Bulli]

Right Bob, I asked my 5 year old son if he was allowed to drive my car...he answered no.When asked why he said because he would get into trouble with a policeman. I dont spend my time putting the fear of god into my kids but I have taught them right from wrong...and more to the point that when he asks to drive(he loves sitting in the disco drivers seat) I tell him he isnt old enough.
So how come a 17 year old(who cannot get a license for a 250- thats the current law) and his 27 year old uncle didnt?? The original post states that the uncle uses the bike legally at a track, he is therefore more than adequately aware of the law.
So back to the establishment being unfare and crushing all these 4x4's . BALLS. it has not happened yet and this law has been around for a few years. Has anyone ever been threatened with it on here????
Please post if you have.
People make mistakes, the legislation is not there to punish people for making errors by taking a wrong turn. The power to confiscate is there to stop people doing the same thing over and over again. This youth would have wet himself if he had got a warning and would have been out again the following day. lets face it the police are stretched way too thin and he knows the odds of being caught again are slim.

[Bob696]

People make mistakes, the legislation is not there to punish people for making errors by taking a wrong turn. The power to confiscate is there to stop people doing the same thing over and over again. This youth would have wet himself if he had got a warning and would have been out again the following day. lets face it the police are stretched way too thin and he knows the odds of being caught again are slim.

just to quote myself

It is all too easy to argue that a law will "never be used that way" but given time it can and probably will.

[drmike]

I see that there are proposals being discussed to give still more power to the police to apply penalties without the need to go court. I think I'm right in saying that a group of police officers suggested that this was inappropriate which I thought was very interesting.

I'm afraid I agree that because a law hasn't been used in a particular way the the potential for what might be abuse is there and hence it is a 'bad thing'.

Didn't they pass some law that allowed existing legislation to be ammended at the discretion of the government at the time without the need to go back to parliament? They kept on banging on that this would never be abused but the potential is there and there'd be nothing you could do about it.

I can see why these laws are passed and the powers granted, and I can see the intention is good and positive. It's possibly fine today with today's circumstances, quality of personnel and responsible chain of command or politicians (although frankly in the case of politicians I doubt it). But what about in a few year's time can we still be sure the same high standards will apply or that political pressure forces different decisions?

What can we do about it? Vote the current lot of politicians out - won't they be replaced by another lot who'll do much the same? It really is very worrying but I suppose it was ever thus.

Mike

[quoman]

the fact remains that laws are there for the good of everybody,ok there will allways be a bad apple,but that should,nt stop us trusting the police,if that day arrives.................the law breaker has won,and do we realy want that

[drmike]

the fact remains that laws are there for the good of everybody,ok there will allways be a bad apple,but that should,nt stop us trusting the police,if that day arrives.................the law breaker has won,and do we realy want that

That's not the point- should we be permitting laws to be passed that don't allow people the chance to put their case in court?

Trusting the police is a side issue - should we trust the politicians' motives for granting the police these powers?

Indeed are all laws for the good of all of us or for the convenience of the establishment? I can't think of an example but I bet others can of legislation that makes life easier for the government local or national rather than for the general public? Possibly an example close to home: the powers granted to National Parks who can now TRO on their own say so?

Mike

[Bob696]

makes life easier for the government local or national rather than for the general public?

Speed cameras and associated laws? Bought in on safety grounds but have led to a reduction in traffic cops (who actualy catch people without liscences) and have proved to be one hell of a revenue earner (which the dishonest motorist dosnt pay as they havn't registered the car to themselves).

[Skibum346]

I too, am most impressed with the conduct of the posters on this topic.

It is nice to be on a forum where there is no need for things to get too personal, and where people are not constantly picking up bad spelling.

I have been a member of many forums where such a debate would have descended into petty name calling and worse.

I would just like to say thankyou for the understanding and tolerence that has been shown for what I have posted, it is nice to agree to disagree without the personal and analytical stuff that occurs on many forums on the net.

Without influencing the fact that we disagree....

 =D>  =D>  =D>  =D>  =D>  =D>
 =D>  =D>  =D>  =D>  =D>  =D>
 =D>  =D>  =D>  =D>  =D>  =D>
 =D>  =D>  =D>  =D>  =D>  =D>

[Skibum346]

[Trusting the police is a side issue

I don't believe it is a side issue. It is clear from the posts made by some of the people on here that they do not trust the police to provide the evidence necessary for these laws to be enforced.

the key issue in all of this discussion is that we are talking about a law that has gone trhough due process and an automatic penalty has been decided.

If a driver was stopped on the highway for ignoring a red light by a police officer who was not equipped with a video camera (whether in a car or on foot) are we really saying that the individual should not suffer the appropriate penalty?

Yes, we do need to be aware of the old Roman saying "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", who guards the guards?. But society needs a method of enforcing the laws that those elected to do so, have passed (whether we, the minority agree or not). The police service is that organisation.

There are safeguards in place, I'm sure TERMINUS can quote eloquently on the processes he has to go through when providing evidence for this kind of offence. And again, this penalty does not mean there is no recourse to the courts, not in this case I suspect the criminal court, rather the civil court.

Skibum

[rangerider]

re: accidentally making a wrong turn from a boat.

As I understand the relevant legislation, the police CANNOT immediatetly impound your vehicle. You must be warned and given a chance to rectify the problem (get back on the byway, trun the stereo down, stop being an obstruction, whatever you are doing wrong).

It is only if you fail to do so, or (the only grey bit in my mind) the officer believes you will continue to commit the offence, or you commit the same offence again later that the full powers of the act come into play.

[Skibum346]

re: accidentally making a wrong turn from a boat.

As I understand the relevant legislation, the police CANNOT immediatetly impound your vehicle. You must be warned and given a chance to rectify the problem (get back on the byway, trun the stereo down, stop being an obstruction, whatever you are doing wrong).

It is only if you fail to do so, or (the only grey bit in my mind) the officer believes you will continue to commit the offence, or you commit the same offence again later that the full powers of the act come into play.

Just to be clear (I posted a link earlier to the specific legislation) the power to confiscate and crush a vehicle (two or four wheeled) only exists where driver of said vehicle is unable to produce the necessary documentation (Tax, MOT, Insurance etc). In the context of this thread, the bike was not designed for road use and is therefor un-insurable, un-taxable and would never have been granted an MOT. If it had been possible to obtain all the relevant documents for the vehicle and the driver subsequently did (and they were valid for the timne at which they were stopped by the police) then their vehicle would be returned to them.

Again, in this case, as the vehicle was not bilt for road use, there was no need for a period of 7 days to be given for the driver to produce.

Skibum

[Bob696]

Yeap that about sums it up to be totally honest. By no means is it every officer or indeed the majority but there are enough to taint all of them.

Here are some examples of my dealings with the police. These are personal experiences NOT anecdotal or friends of friends etc.

1) Being assaulted on my doorstep by a drunk. Karen calls 999. Nothing happens. I calm the drunk down rather then beating the crap out of him and he wonders away. 15mins later he returns and starts it up again. Another 999 call, this time I man handle him away from the door.
An hour later we get a call from the police to see if "everything is all right"   With a promise they would send an officer around to get a statement. Never turned up.

2) A drunk driver (I assume) ran into the side of our parked car which was off the road in parking bay. This was about midnight. I ran outside and flagged down a police car that was passing. I pointed out the guy who was legging it around a corner and down an ally. The 2 officers inspected the scene then moved the drunks car out of the road. They then spent over an hour in our living room checking out our insurance and other stuff. They even had the nerve to ask if we had been drinking! At no time did they attempt to chase this guy. The 'drunk' came back in the morning and drove off in his car. The police tracked him down after much badgering by us but told us "He denied it and there is nothing we can do. Besides you have fully comp insurance, we checked".

3) 9.30 on a friday evening I was walking along a pavement when I was run over by a car pulling off a pub carpark, the guy wondered what he had hit so he reversed, over my leg. 3 days in intensive care with a head injury and unable to walk for a week afterwards and off work for 5 months returned to work part time for a further 6 months. I employed a solicitor to pursue claims for damages and (as instructed by BT to recoup their losses as they had paid me my full wage) he obtained all the witness statements from the police. The only person who was a witness that didn’t have his job listed was the driver and it turned out he wasn’t breathalyzed. My solicitor dug more and found out he was a serving police officer. The police also refused to take statements from my 2 friends who were 10 yds behind me at the time as they were "not disinterested parties". My solicitor pushed more and more over the months and was stonewalled at every turn. This included the 2 investigating officers going on a rugby tour of New Zealand for 3 months and the records of the incident could not be found. It was getting me down so much (and Karen had just had Michael) that after 2 years I told the solicitor to drop it and just get what he could.

4) Being stopped from entering a village because I was on a motorcycle. This was later challenged in court (the police had also stopped a solicitor on the same day) and the chief constable was reprimanded for abusing his power. Turns out he had a friend in the village who didn’t like all those hooligans riding through his village

5) Coming home from a bike rally we encountered a road block. All motorcyclists were waved over to the side. Cars vans etc were waved through. I was given a rectification notice for faulty fork seals (there was a ring of mud half way up the forks) within the hour I was at an MOT station as it was due in the next week anyway and the bike passed first time. I was with 3 other bikers, Karen was passed, Steve got a fine as his number plate was 5mm too narrow and John got a fine as his number plate bulb was faulty.

6) We owned an empty house that we were doing up for sale and at the time I owned a Peugeot 205 that had a blown head gasket and we parked it outside the house in a parking bay. It had been confirmed earlier with the council that this was indeed off the road and this was pre SORN days. The tax ran out although it still had 6 months MOT and next door complained to the police. Despite it being registered at the house it was parked outside of they came and lifted it one week after the tax expired. We produced the letter from the council and we were told we could have it back from a pound that was 30 miles away. Returning it would be at our own expense. Britania recovery wouldn't/couldn't help us as it was in a pound and given that we had only paid £200 the cost of moving it was prohibitive (none runner remember). So we told them they could have it/crush it whatever. They then tried to bill us for disposal of the car. Told them to take me to court for it and not heard anything since.

Trust the police? Not a damn chance of it. Oh and I have never been in trouble with the police not even as a kid. Never been arrested or even got as much as a parking ticket or points on my license. I would no more trust the police force as I would a complete stranger in the street.