Page 1 of 1

Re: Rice V Connolly

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:01 am
by Prajna
Good to have the full story, Musashi. I think this will come in very handy in future dealings... though I am not so sure it will work for me if I am stopped in the van, since they will call on the RTA to suggest I have a 'statutory' duty to assist the fuzz if I am 'in charge of a motor vehicle' (whatever one of those is).

So I'll do my best to remember Rive v Connoly.

Namaste

Re: Rice V Connolly

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:17 pm
by musashi
As a 'citizen', we may be assigned 'rights' and 'duties' - as you may well know - and one of those duties assigned by the Road Traffic Act 2000 is that we are obliged to give a name to a police officer when we are stopped whilst driving.
It specifies a "name" but it says nothing about address, date of birth and so on. Neither does it say it must be a full name. Just a name. :giggle: At least, that's my memory of it.
The trick, of course, is to get the silly buggers to recognise that their common law police powers do not entitle them to enforce civil matters.
Curiously, when they turn up at our doors at the behest of some bailiff and we invite them to get involved, they - of a sudden - understand their limitations in the situation. "This is a civil matter. We are only here to prevent a breach of the peace."

Aah, humanity!
M...m...musashi.

Re: Rice V Connolly

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:08 pm
by Prajna
Hmm... it seems that up until 2004 there were many exceptions to when the fuzz can lawfully demand your details:

Duty to give information as to identity of driver etc in certain circumstances.(1)This section applies—
(a)to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—
(i)an offence under Part V, or
(ii)an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or 120,
and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,(b)to any offence under sections 25, 26 or 27 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988,
(c)to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads, F2... and
(d)to manslaughter, or in Scotland culpable homicide, by the driver of a motor vehicle.

section (ii)c was added in 2004, extending the duty to any motoring offence. And, as you can see, it requires the 'identity', however that is established and defined; one could perhaps argue that 'Prajna' is sufficient for anyone in this country to identify me. :grin:

If it weren't for that pesky and draconian sect (ii)c then I would have every right to refuse to provide details since road tax doesn't seem to be covered in the RTA.

Anyway, it isn't of great importance to me if I am breaking that statute since I am breaking statutes by not paying road tax or getting it MOTed. I don't care how many of their statutes I break in the process of my Gandhi-inspired civil disobedience.

Namaste

Re: Rice V Connolly

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:25 pm
by pedawson
musashi wrote:As a 'citizen', we may be assigned 'rights' and 'duties' - as you may well know - and one of those duties assigned by the Road Traffic Act 2000 is that we are obliged to give a name to a police officer when we are stopped whilst driving.
It specifies a "name" but it says nothing about address, date of birth and so on. Neither does it say it must be a full name. Just a name. :giggle: At least, that's my memory of it ...

Take a look at your Vehicle registration - registered keeper documentation, it states quite clearly that one is not legally obliged to give Date of Birth.
This of course applies to any document and all events. The Birth Cert states that it is NOT an ID and should NOT be used as such.

I saw in this documentation no reference to the reasonable suspicion, YES he was in the area that had just been burgled but then just about every person housed in the area was too. That he was walking about at that time of night does not construe being suspicious. It sounded to me that they were after his NAME and ADDRESS. How could this be pertinent to the stop? If a burglary had been committed, a knowledge of what had been burgled would be necessary. The case never referred to the property that had been burgled nor did it state what was taken. Obstruction WOULD have been established if he had refused to be searched, as reasonable doubt HAD been provided; by the recent burglary. However for true reasonable doubt the individual SHOULD have been reported to the police, should have fitted a description or had been witnessed by A. N. Other or the police IN THAT (IMMEDIATE) area.

That they HAD to arrest him to get the information they required proves conclusively that they had no such evidence in the first place, had he said he wasn't in the vicinity of the burglary and they had actually had a witness, or witnessed him being there that would provide the 'obstruction' charge.

I would be inclined, at the time or shortly thereafter to ask for the evidence of the actual burglary and the time it took place and if there were any witnesses.
The other thing that stinks in this is the police state there were a spate of burglaries and not just one, yes they are on the prowl for suspects but short of evidence and or witnesses they in fact had NOTHING.
This was a complete waste of public funds and I have paid for the police to waste MY money on sloppy and incomplete investigation.
It SMACKS of 'SELF AGGRANDISEMENT' on the part of the PLOD that stopped him.

When are we going to get value for the money we pay these limp dicked knobs that call themselves police officers - IN FRONT OF US and Constables in a court?

A disgrace throughout.

Namaste, rev;

Re: Rice V Connolly

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:32 pm
by musashi
these limp dicked knobs that call themselves police officers - IN FRONT OF US and Constables in a court.
Namaste, rev;[/quote]

Got it in one, Rev. It's the old revolving door trick - as practiced and perfected by numerous scurrilous pork avoiding mammon worshipers, such as Dick (I love kids!) Cheney and Sir Phillip (I love kids AND money!) Greene. You know him, the tax evading/avoiding to the tune of £220M per annum willy-watcher. He was so good at being Jewish that David (I love Israel so much I let it fuck me in the cabbage patch) Cameron brought him in at fabulous rates to circumcise services, staff, and just generally give you less for more.
Once again, they demand high rates of pay for the damage they do us.

It's the same trick the judges pull, is it not? Use common law powers to fuck us in the civil.
Still, we know about torts now, do we not?
We know about unlawful administrative law, do we not?
We know about liens, do we not?
We know about the Civil Procedures Rules, do we not?
We know about Criminal Procedures Rules, do we not?
Put them all together and what have you got?
The first answer out of the postbag gets a free soapy one off the wrist from Tony (Ive never cottaged!) Blair.
Aarrgh, Musashi.

Re: Rice V Connolly

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:08 am
by Prajna
'THE STATUS QUO'

ok, it may not be the right answer, but it is the first answer and according to my reading of the competition T&Cs that nets me the free soapy one (which, I sincerely hope, I can deploy in any manner I choose).

Namaste

Re: Rice V Connolly

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:36 pm
by knightron
Prajna wrote:'THE STATUS QUO'

ok, it may not be the right answer, but it is the first answer and according to my reading of the competition T&Cs that nets me the free soapy one (which, I sincerely hope, I can deploy in any manner I choose).

Namaste

We need to install a "Fucking ace answer" Button for occasions like this... :clap: :giggle: :giggle: :giggle: :giggle:

Re: Rice V Connolly

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:17 am
by musashi
Yes indeed, this was the first answer out of the bag! :cheer:
Well there you go it looks like the crap hat rupert sapper gets to deploy the soapy one.
Three cheers for Captain Kiwi! :clap: :clap: :clap:

The first correct answer out of the bag wins a night in with the Mandelsons.

Musashi