Anpr

[danny_kiernan]

Originally Posted by Rob S

Dani,

I am challenging you. You have said a number of things in this thread which are totally wrong, such as police needing probable cause to stop a vehicle, ANPR being illegal, any police arrest as a result of an ANPR stop being unlawful (to name but a few) and yet when you have been presented with solid proof of your errors you have become offensive, comparing me with a bored teenager, accusing me of being a "plant" (not just in this thread but others too) and generally trying to put me down. Your behaviour is not acceptable.

A fine old proverb comes to mind - one who lives in glass houses shold not throw stones.

I removed 2 references, which you took exception to a day or so ago, the admin removed the other, I take exception to this post stating my behaviour is unacceptable - maybe you should self-edit your posts like I do, so as not to cause offence, but somehow I do not believe that is on your agenda suprise suprise

Originally Posted by Rob S

While you continue to peddle your inaccurate information, I will step in and point out your errors so that you don't mislead other forum members.

You should give very careful consideration to not posting this misinformation until you can provide information that is accurate. You have failed spectacularly to do this in this thread and in continuing all you are doing is making yourself a laughing stock.

Firstly, I am not peddling, peddling requires a sale of some sort - I offered this information freely. To be quite honest I knew that there would be a Police Supporter or 2 to deal with, but that is something you have to deal with when you have a cause, you sincerely believe in.

Thinking about that, what evidence have you offered to the contrary, ah you have used a classic distraction technique - say a load of stuff, then put the burden of proof on the other person, thereby detracting from the fact you have no evidence yourself.

Laughing stock - all I can say is so what?

Originally Posted by Rob S

I said earlier on I would be popping back in to see if you are still digging that hole. Unfortunately you are and it is getting deeper and deeper.

Well that depends on perspective, I am currently sat outside the hole on a beach chair, watching you.

Kind Regards and a good weekend

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

How I chill out:

I hold my 2 month old daughter Amber in my arms, and she smiles at me, and I know that all the troubles aren't all that bad. It steels my resolve and I think cool, I am taking the government to court in strasbourg as soon as the CCRC are done. I may have to spend the rest of my life in court, but I am making sure my daughters don't have to.

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

The police do need a cause to stop a vehicle, unless there is a matter of emergency, such as an escaped prisoner, bomb threat etc.

Please reread your laws rob, there may be hope for you if you do

No, you read the laws, and in particular the Road Traffic Act. I have read it and I know that police do not need cause to stop a vehicle. You obviously have a stubborn streak that is preventing you from realising the facts in this matter.

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Firstly, I am not peddling, peddling requires a sale of some sort - I offered this information freely. To be quite honest I knew that there would be a Police Supporter or 2 to deal with, but that is something you have to deal with when you have a cause, you sincerely believe in.

Seems you are getting picky now over my choice of words, but one of the dictionary definitions of peddle is "to advocate ideas persistently" (from the Collins English Dictionary).

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Thinking about that, what evidence have you offered to the contrary, ah you have used a classic distraction technique - say a load of stuff, then put the burden of proof on the other person, thereby detracting from the fact you have no evidence yourself.

Let me see now, the exact section of the Road Traffic Act which gives police the power to stop vehicles without "probable cause", the 3 links which showed that your claim about Margaret Brown was incorrect as it had been over turned by the Privy Council (which you were forced to concede on after initially telling me I was wrong, and in which you posted up the exact same link as one I had used). I'd say that was firm evidence. As for putting the burden on you, I'm not the one going around saying that ANPR is illegal, you are. You have yet to offer any which supports your view. So it's not up to me to produce the evidence to support your claim.

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

Well that depends on perspective, I am currently sat outside the hole on a beach chair, watching you.

Kind Regards and a good weekend

Dani

So you have dug the hole so far and deep that you have emerged in Australia?

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

The police do need a cause to stop a vehicle, unless there is a matter of emergency, such as an escaped prisoner, bomb threat etc.

The Police do not need cause (or suspicion) to stop any motor vehicle at any time on a public road.

The RTA gives them the authority to require any vehicle to stop.

Leaving ANPR aside for a moment, It is perfectly lawful for the Police to stop any car at random, every nth car, every car of a certain colour even, just to do a document check. There is no requirement for probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

There is such a requirement to stop a pedestrian going about his/her lawful business, but not a driver.

[danny_kiernan]

And thats lawful - is it?

Do we live in the UK or some capitalist state?

[danny_kiernan]

Originally Posted by Rob S

Seems you are getting picky now over my choice of words, but one of the dictionary definitions of peddle is "to advocate ideas persistently" (from the Collins English Dictionary).



Let me see now, the exact section of the Road Traffic Act which gives police the power to stop vehicles without "probable cause", the 3 links which showed that your claim about Margaret Brown was incorrect as it had been over turned by the Privy Council (which you were forced to concede on after initially telling me I was wrong, and in which you posted up the exact same link as one I had used). I'd say that was firm evidence. As for putting the burden on you, I'm not the one going around saying that ANPR is illegal, you are. You have yet to offer any which supports your view. So it's not up to me to produce the evidence to support your claim.



So you have dug the hole so far and deep that you have emerged in Australia?

OK as you disagree with me so strongly, and refuse to take anything on board that I have said; I have no choice but to challenge you to a duel, whereabouts do you live? Then I can make it quick and painless on your own turf?

[danny_kiernan]

don't be shy Rob - I have the right to challenge you to a duel, conferred by charles II on my Irish title as lord of Kilkenny. ask a lawyer if you do not believe me.

Dani

[danny_kiernan]

And it can take place on English/French or Irish soil - I hope you have a good second

[danny_kiernan]

once you have had a chat with a lawyer get back to me

[Rob S]

Dani,

The reason I won't take much of what you say on board is because you are talking out of your backside. You have been pointed towards legislation which debunks your claims, and other posters have also pointed out that you are wrong. But still you carry on spouting your unsubstantiated claims and giving advice which is incorrect. So, you carry on as you are mate. I'll sit back and watch what is left of your credibility go rapidly down the pan.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

And thats lawful - is it?

As had been quoted to you ad nauseum, yes - it is statute law

Do we live in the UK or some capitalist state?

I think that you will find that it is both.

Did you perchance mean totalitarian state?

[danny_kiernan]

no I meant communist state

[danny_kiernan]

ANPR has led to a new form of criminal - the number plate cloner.

In days gone by, only criminals would change number plates on a stolen car, however our new nanny state has meant people getting disqualified for ridiculous reasons, so unfortunately a lot of otherwise law-abiding citizens are resorting to cloning - so they can get on with their lives as their licences have been revoked, by an unjust state.

For Example - How can you get 1 point on your licence? In other european countries, you can get 1 point on your licence for offences, here - it is a mandatory 3 points minimum - work that one out!

Dani

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by danny_kiernan

ANPR has led to a new form of criminal - the number plate cloner.

I think you might find it was speed cameras rather than ANPR that led to the upsurge in cloning.

In days gone by, only criminals would change number plates

Cloning is a criminal offence, so in these days, it is still only criminals who change VRM plates!

[Rob S]

Nothing new to see here folks, move along now. There is no new information,let alone evidence produced to support the original claims of the thread starter

[danny_kiernan]

Originally Posted by patdavies

I think you might find it was speed cameras rather than ANPR that led to the upsurge in cloning.

I agree with you in part, cloning has come about due to all forms of vehicle surveillance, both overt and covert:

By overt, I mean Gatso cameras (which is what you meant), marked police camera vans etc.

By covert, I mean unmarked police vehicles equipped with ANPR, cctv cameras in towns/roads equipped with ANPR etc.