Prosecuted for helping the police?

[stevensfo]

I thought of Current Affairs, but those threads go on for ages, and I like to keep things light-hearted.

A woman who gave police footage from her dash-cam and got the guy banned from driving etc, is then prosecuted herself!

"However, it also serves as a reminder that we examine footage for evidence of offences by all parties.
"So, if you commit an offence as well as the person you’re reporting to us, you may face prosecution too. We will not overlook one offence to prosecute another."

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/driver-who-fi ... 15249.html

The guy was banned for 12 months, so it must have been pretty serious.

But what message is this sending to us? A subtle 'just leave us alone' ?

Steve

[XFool]

...In a strictly light-hearted manner.

That reminds me of the story, from about the late 1990 to early 2000s, of a man who handed a gun in at a police station and was then prosecuted for "Being in possession of a firearm".

[Lootman]

No idea if this is actually true but an accountant told me once that if you report someone else for fiddling their taxes, then HMRC will look into you as well. Evidently they have found some correlation between those who snitch on others and fraudulent behaviour themselves.

Could that apply more broadly i.e. that the kind of person who would record bad behaviour and then report it is more likely to be guilty of some as well? Based on the idea that it takes two people to create a bad situation such as this incident?

Personally I do not like this obsession with recording others that the smart phone revolution and other tech advances has brought to us. And I have always taken the view that it is a bit snide to try and get other people into trouble. I prefer to mind my own business. That said I would cooperate with police if asked. I simply would not instigate something like this, however.

[1nvest]

...In a strictly light-hearted manner.

That reminds me of the story, from about the late 1990 to early 2000s, of a man who handed a gun in at a police station and was then prosecuted for "Being in possession of a firearm".

Heard that you can also be prosecuted for reporting to a police officer that a police officer is going to be shot. Entices one to just shoot without warning. If you can find one. In many 'cosmopolitan' towns/cities the police are not now the established local law enforcers councillors.

[Spet0789]

Seems quite reasonable to me. The copper puts it beautifully:

"Hopefully this case demonstrates that we take all instances of poor driving very seriously and we will prosecute offenders accordingly, which can only be a good thing to help keep our roads safer.

"However, it also serves as a reminder that we examine footage for evidence of offences by all parties.

"So, if you commit an offence as well as the person you’re reporting to us, you may face prosecution too. We will not overlook one offence to prosecute another."

From my perspective, if you can be undertaken (unless by someone driving like a proper loon) you’re probably in the wrong lane. My grandad taught me that you should treat an overtake on a multi-carriageway road as a deliberate event (just as on a single-carriageway) and move back over when you’re done. Drifting along in any lane other than the left lane is driving without due care and attention.

[Leothebear]

From my perspective, if you can be undertaken (unless by someone driving like a proper loon) you’re probably in the wrong lane. My grandad taught me that you should treat an overtake on a multi-carriageway road as a deliberate event (just as on a single-carriageway) and move back over when you’re done. Drifting along in any lane other than the left lane is driving without due care and attention.

On today's motorways this rule is nonsense.

[Lootman]

From my perspective, if you can be undertaken (unless by someone driving like a proper loon) you’re probably in the wrong lane. My grandad taught me that you should treat an overtake on a multi-carriageway road as a deliberate event (just as on a single-carriageway) and move back over when you’re done. Drifting along in any lane other than the left lane is driving without due care and attention.

On today's motorways this rule is nonsense.

Agreed. It might be true on some remotely used motorway in Scotland. But on the M25 you just take a lane and then it proceeds at whatever pace it proceeds, regardless of what is going on in the other lanes. Much like on US freeways where lane discipline is also redundant.

[Spet0789]

From my perspective, if you can be undertaken (unless by someone driving like a proper loon) you’re probably in the wrong lane. My grandad taught me that you should treat an overtake on a multi-carriageway road as a deliberate event (just as on a single-carriageway) and move back over when you’re done. Drifting along in any lane other than the left lane is driving without due care and attention.

On today's motorways this rule is nonsense.

Agreed. It might be true on some remotely used motorway in Scotland. But on the M25 you just take a lane and then it proceeds at whatever pace it proceeds, regardless of what is going on in the other lanes. Much like on US freeways where lane discipline is also redundant.

Precisely why the police need to prosecute you lot! You may not like it but the law is as I have described it.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Personally I don’t like driving on US freeways where it’s a free for all but do enjoy Autobahnen where lane discipline tends to be excellent.

[Lootman]

Agreed. It might be true on some remotely used motorway in Scotland. But on the M25 you just take a lane and then it proceeds at whatever pace it proceeds, regardless of what is going on in the other lanes. Much like on US freeways where lane discipline is also redundant.

Precisely why the police need to prosecute you lot! We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

My point was that lane discipline only works when motorways are not jammed.

[Spet0789]

Precisely why the police need to prosecute you lot! We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

My point was that lane discipline only works when motorways are not jammed.

Often on the M25 lanes 3 and 4 are jammed because some cretin is ambling along in lane 2 with lane 1 empty. Lock ‘em up I say.

[redsturgeon]

I agree that lane hogging is annoying but can I complain about those idiots that come up behind me when I have made a decision to stay in lane two to overtake the car a couple of hundred yards ahead rather than pull in and pull out again. These people then decide that rather than overtake me in lane three which is perfectly clear they will "teach me a lesson" and undertake me instead, weaving from lane two into lane one before pulling out in front of me back into lane two.

Well bully for them, they managed a somewhat dangerous manoeuvre that "proved" I could have moved across and let them have free reign in lane two rather than forcing them to legally overtake me in lane three. This has happened more than once.

John

[UncleEbenezer]

No idea if this is actually true but an accountant told me once that if you report someone else for fiddling their taxes, then HMRC will look into you as well. Evidently they have found some correlation between those who snitch on others and fraudulent behaviour themselves.

Hmmm. I'm sure it can't have escaped you how self-serving a story like that may be in a community of people in finance, many (all?) of them in or at least contemplating grey areas in their own financial affairs, and some may be beyond that. Don't snitch on me becomes a threat backed by HMRC.

Could that apply more broadly i.e. that the kind of person who would record bad behaviour and then report it is more likely to be guilty of some as well? Based on the idea that it takes two people to create a bad situation such as this incident?

Very plausible. Bad (or good) behaviour in one person may breed bad (good) behaviour in others. Especially in an impersonal setting like the roads.

Personally I do not like this obsession with recording others that the smart phone revolution and other tech advances has brought to us. And I have always taken the view that it is a bit snide to try and get other people into trouble. I prefer to mind my own business. That said I would cooperate with police if asked. I simply would not instigate something like this, however.

The Law has something to say on that as well. If you film people without their consent, you may be violating their privacy.

[JohnB]

I think 2 people have learnt a lesson about their bad driving. And if you do approach the police you must be prepared to defend your actions, after all the other person's defence will bring it up if you are called as a witness.

[XFool]

The Law has something to say on that as well. If you film people without their consent, you may be violating their privacy.

Yeah.

The trouble seems to be (see recent arrests of news journalists in this country by police) too many of the "police" seem to lack all common sense. I still remember, from issues years ago where I live, telling a PCSO(?) how some persistently troublesome boys from an adjacent house had been filmed by one of my neighbours smashing up a hut in a neighbouring garden. His only comment: "People might object to being filmed" seemed to me to miss the mark by a very wide margin.

I could go on, but I won't...

[doolally]

I agree that lane hogging is annoying but can I complain about those idiots that come up behind me when I have made a decision to stay in lane two to overtake the car a couple of hundred yards ahead rather than pull in and pull out again.

John

I think the real issue is not whether the car is a couple of hundred yards ahead, but how long it will take you to catch up with that car. If you will pass them in, say, 20s, that seems reasonable. But so often I see cars in that situation with a relative speed of 1-2mph and it may take 5 minutes, in which case it's better to move to the inside lane.
Too many drivers see the distance but don't consider the time.
doolally

[XFool]

I thought of Current Affairs, but those threads go on for ages, and I like to keep things light-hearted.

"Should have gone to Specsavers!"

[JohnB]

https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/dash-ca ... ty85w5AYQC
says its legal, no surprise there

https://nextbase.co.uk/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/ is a website for uploading footage, probably with vastly fewer questions than when I tried to submit a case of bad driving to Kent Police, who seem to have convoluted forms to avoid crimes being reported.

[stevensfo]

The Law has something to say on that as well. If you film people without their consent, you may be violating their privacy.

Yeah.

The trouble seems to be (see recent arrests of news journalists in this country by police) too many of the "police" seem to lack all common sense. I still remember, from issues years ago where I live, telling a PCSO(?) how some persistently troublesome boys from an adjacent house had been filmed by one of my neighbours smashing up a hut in a neighbouring garden. His only comment: "People might object to being filmed" seemed to me to miss the mark by a very wide margin.

I could go on, but I won't...

I would have thought that providing film of a crime being committed is doing your civic duty and should be rewarded.

One time when a video IS very valuable is when making a citizen's arrest. In such a case, you not only give permission to be filmed, albeit afterwards, but you're protecting yourself from claims that you used excessive force...blablabla, or whatever the police will say to keep us plebs moving along with our eyes down and not make them do any more paperwork!

Steve

[stevensfo]

...In a strictly light-hearted manner.

That reminds me of the story, from about the late 1990 to early 2000s, of a man who handed a gun in at a police station and was then prosecuted for "Being in possession of a firearm".

I vaguely remember many years ago when the laws on child abuse were finally being overhauled and updated (at least 50 years too bloody late!) and for a few years, there were stories of children being put on the sex offenders register. I think that common sense finally prevailed and the authorities realised that little Tommy and Karen 'experimenting' may be 'underage' in theory but was definitely not the same as sexual abuse!


Steve

[scotia]

Agreed. It might be true on some remotely used motorway in Scotland. .

Would you like to tell us where that remotely used motorway is in Scotland? I'd like to try it out.
In the initial motorway building era, Scotland was sparingly provided with a motorway which covered part of the route between our two major cities. But unlike the English motorways, it had two lanes - not three. Its true that more motorways have been added, and generally speaking, they seem to have upped the number of lanes. But on Perth to Inverness there is no chance of a motorway, and still long sections of single carriageway - however it is being gradually upgraded in sections to (2-lane) dual carriageway. So you can guess what would happen on a short dualled section if someone ambled along in the outer lane, while the remainder are desperate to catch up and get past the heavy lorry which has been creating a long tailback on the preceding single carriageway section.
But back to the M25 - with so many lanes I never thought that "rules?" regarding returning to the inside lane were intended to operate, nor did I imagine that undertaking was frowned upon. I.E. I always that that the philosophy of Scottish common sense should apply. Or is it in short supply down there?
Incidentally In the urban motorway through Glasgow, there are entries and exits for traffic on both the left and the right , so there is effectively no "outside" lane.