Give him a medal

"Dave M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> More than 20 motorists in Hampshire have fallen victim to a mystery
> vigilante who appears to target drivers spotted using mobile phones.
>
> All the car owners have found their tyres have been slashed and, in many
> cases, a note on their windscreens.
>
> The sinister message, made from newspaper cuttings, says the driver was
> seen using a phone.
>
> Hampshire Police are investigating the incidents in Gosport,
> Lee-on-the-Solent and Stubbington.
>

Well they could always start by issuing themselves with FPN's whenever they
use their push to talk half duplex personal radios while driving and it
isn't an emergency - but oops I forgot it is one law for them and another
law for the rest of us see:-

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations
2003,
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032695.htm
s 2 [110] (4)

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Regulation 110(4) provides a definition of devices that are considered
similar to hand-held mobile telephones for the purpose of these regulations.
This definition excludes two-way radios.

---

› See More: Give him a medal

On 2006-08-15, Lumpy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> It is criminal damage, even if he did have the "excuse" of having seen
>> the people using a mobile, which he knew the police would do nothing
>> about.
>
> If the man ia accusing those people of using phones whilst driving, I
> would say the police have a duty to investigate, and to serve those
> idiots with the apporpriate punishment.

How are they supposed to investigate? Where will there be any evidence
of the victims using a phone whilst driving?

>> But he doesn't. He is clearly targeting people at random, and leaving
>> the notes on the assumption that most people will have used a mobile
>> in their car at some time.
>>
>> One of the people targeted doesn't even *own* a mobile phone.
>
> Just because someone says they don't OWN a phone doesn't mean they
> didn't USE one. I don't own a car, but I drive one. It is for the
> police to ascertain whether the targetting is random or not. We can't
> judge just because someone says they don't own a phone.

Nope. It is for the police to investigate who is committing acts of
criminal damage and arrest them.

--
David Taylor

On 2006-08-15, R. Mark Clayton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Well they could always start by issuing themselves with FPN's whenever they
> use their push to talk half duplex personal radios while driving and it
> isn't an emergency - but oops I forgot it is one law for them and another
> law for the rest of us see:-

Er, no. As you quoted below it is the same law for them and us.

It is entirely legal for a police officer to use a two-way radio whilst
driving, just as it is entirely legal for _you_ to use a two-way radio
whilst driving.

--
David Taylor

>
> Well they could always start by issuing themselves with FPN's whenever they use
> their push to talk half duplex personal radios while driving and it isn't an
> emergency - but oops I forgot it is one law for them and another law for the
> rest of us see:-
>
> The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003,
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032695.htm
> s 2 [110] (4)
>
> EXPLANATORY NOTE
>
> Regulation 110(4) provides a definition of devices that are considered similar
> to hand-held mobile telephones for the purpose of these regulations. This
> definition excludes two-way radios.
>
>

Not quite right there

Taxi , ambulance driver , police , in fact any one using a two way radio is
exempt under an act of parliament

Plod has another sneaky one up his sleeve tho'

It can be used for two way radio's , lighting a fag , drinking a can of pop or
eating an apple

Think its called driving without due care and attention

DieSea

"David Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2006-08-15, R. Mark Clayton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Well they could always start by issuing themselves with FPN's whenever
>> they
>> use their push to talk half duplex personal radios while driving and it
>> isn't an emergency - but oops I forgot it is one law for them and another
>> law for the rest of us see:-
>
> Er, no. As you quoted below it is the same law for them and us.
>
> It is entirely legal for a police officer to use a two-way radio whilst
> driving, just as it is entirely legal for _you_ to use a two-way radio
> whilst driving.

Unless it just happens to be a mobile phone.

The upshot is that the police use two way half duplex radio (therefore you
have to press to talk) all the time, whereas if you use your full duplex
radio phone the very same police officer who has just PNC'ed your vehicle
over the radio while following you will give you a ticket.

>
> --
> David Taylor

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "David Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2006-08-15, R. Mark Clayton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well they could always start by issuing themselves with FPN's
>>> whenever they
>>> use their push to talk half duplex personal radios while driving
>>> and it isn't an emergency - but oops I forgot it is one law for
>>> them and another law for the rest of us see:-
>>
>> Er, no. As you quoted below it is the same law for them and us.
>>
>> It is entirely legal for a police officer to use a two-way radio
>> whilst driving, just as it is entirely legal for _you_ to use a
>> two-way radio whilst driving.
>
> Unless it just happens to be a mobile phone.
>
> The upshot is that the police use two way half duplex radio
> (therefore you have to press to talk) all the time, whereas if you
> use your full duplex radio phone the very same police officer who has
> just PNC'ed your vehicle over the radio while following you will give
> you a ticket.

And?

On 2006-08-15, R. Mark Clayton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "David Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2006-08-15, R. Mark Clayton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well they could always start by issuing themselves with FPN's whenever
>>> they
>>> use their push to talk half duplex personal radios while driving and it
>>> isn't an emergency - but oops I forgot it is one law for them and another
>>> law for the rest of us see:-
>>
>> Er, no. As you quoted below it is the same law for them and us.
>>
>> It is entirely legal for a police officer to use a two-way radio whilst
>> driving, just as it is entirely legal for _you_ to use a two-way radio
>> whilst driving.
>
> Unless it just happens to be a mobile phone.
>
> The upshot is that the police use two way half duplex radio (therefore you
> have to press to talk) all the time, whereas if you use your full duplex
> radio phone the very same police officer who has just PNC'ed your vehicle
> over the radio while following you will give you a ticket.

So? It's still the same law for them as us. If they'd PNC'ed my vehicle
over a mobile phone, they'd be breaking the law. If I'd been using a
non-prohibited radio they couldn't give me a ticket (except, possibly,
for DWDCAA).

--
David Taylor

Alex Heney wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:06:38 +0100, Dave M <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >More than 20 motorists in Hampshire have fallen victim to a mystery
> >vigilante who appears to target drivers spotted using mobile phones.
> >
> >All the car owners have found their tyres have been slashed and, in many
> >cases, a note on their windscreens.
> >
> >The sinister message, made from newspaper cuttings, says the driver was
> >seen using a phone.
> >
> >Hampshire Police are investigating the incidents in Gosport,
> >Lee-on-the-Solent and Stubbington.
>
> Give him a medal?
>
> He should be in prison.
>
> It is criminal damage, even if he did have the "excuse" of having seen
> the people using a mobile, which he knew the police would do nothing
> about.

Regrettably I think we are going to see more of this 'taking the law into
one's own hands' as the police do less and less in combatting low-level
crime, particularly from the law-breaking motorist who seems to be able to
kill and maim with little comeback.
IMO private security forces will soon become the norm.

John B

Lumpy wrote:

> Alex Heney wrote:

>>He should be in prison.

> As should all those pratts driving around using their mobile phones.

Can you ***** "over-reaction"?

> Let's stnd them all on the fast lane of the motor way, drive at them at
> speed, and see how good they are at dogding cars whilst talking on
> their mobiles. Lapse of concentration = severe injury/death (THEIRS,
> not an innocent road user's)

???

>>It is criminal damage, even if he did have the "excuse" of having seen
>>the people using a mobile, which he knew the police would do nothing
>>about.

> If the man ia accusing those people of using phones whilst driving, I
> would say the police have a duty to investigate, and to serve those
> idiots with the apporpriate punishment.

Let him walk into a police station, identify himself as a witness (giving
the police his name, date of birth and address - as all witnesses do) and
then proceed to make his allegations.

Until he does that, he's just a criminal. Though he'll still be a criminal
after he's done it.

>>But he doesn't. He is clearly targeting people at random, and leaving
>>the notes on the assumption that most people will have used a mobile
>>in their car at some time.

>>One of the people targeted doesn't even *own* a mobile phone.

> Just because someone says they don't OWN a phone doesn't mean they
> didn't USE one. I don't own a car, but I drive one. It is for the
> police to ascertain whether the targetting is random or not. We can't
> judge just because someone says they don't own a phone.

What a weird sense of priorities you have. You choose to disbelieve the
word of the victim and to believe the allegations of an anonymous nutter
who is committing criminal damage (the legal equivalent of theft).

> Taxi , ambulance driver , police , in fact any one using a two way radio
> is exempt under an act of parliament

Actually, it is a Statutory Instrument, not an Act of Parliament, but this
is of no relevence.

> It can be used for two way radio's , lighting a fag , drinking a can of
> pop or eating an apple
>
> Think its called driving without due care and attention

Yes, but much harder to get a conviction without further evidence, such as
swerving across the road or suchlike.

Christian.

David Taylor wrote:
> On 2006-08-15, Lumpy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>> It is criminal damage, even if he did have the "excuse" of having
>>> seen the people using a mobile, which he knew the police would do
>>> nothing about.
>>
>> If the man ia accusing those people of using phones whilst driving, I
>> would say the police have a duty to investigate, and to serve those
>> idiots with the apporpriate punishment.
>
> How are they supposed to investigate? Where will there be any
> evidence of the victims using a phone whilst driving?

That is a good point - if we all had a little more gumption, we could take
videos of the idiots who insist on using a mobile while driving.
--
MrBitsy

JNugent wrote:

> What a weird sense of priorities you have. You choose to disbelieve
> the word of the victim and to believe the allegations of an anonymous
> nutter who is committing criminal damage (the legal equivalent of
> theft).

Just who is the nutter?

At least the tyre slasher is doing it when the car is stationary.

--
MrBitsy

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "Dave M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> More than 20 motorists in Hampshire have fallen victim to a mystery
>> vigilante who appears to target drivers spotted using mobile phones.
>>
>> All the car owners have found their tyres have been slashed and, in
>> many cases, a note on their windscreens.
>>
>> The sinister message, made from newspaper cuttings, says the driver
>> was seen using a phone.
>>
>> Hampshire Police are investigating the incidents in Gosport,
>> Lee-on-the-Solent and Stubbington.
>>
>
> Well they could always start by issuing themselves with FPN's
> whenever they use their push to talk half duplex personal radios
> while driving and it isn't an emergency - but oops I forgot it is one
> law for them and another law for the rest of us see:-

Policemen are communicating in short, pre-trained phrases to do with the
task at hand. Mobile phone users are talking in long sentences, not
pre-thought and nothing to do with the task at hand.

It is rather like flying an aeroplane. When in the circuit, I have to talk
to the ground to give my position and receive clearances. All transmissions
have something to do with the task I am performing and are short,
pre-planned phrases - it actually helps with situational awareness.

However, if I was to go around the circuit talking to a mate about what to
do at the weekend, my situational awareness would go to **** for a start,
and I bet the landing would be a mess.

--
MrBitsy

"MrBitsy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> JNugent wrote:
>
>> What a weird sense of priorities you have. You choose to disbelieve
>> the word of the victim and to believe the allegations of an anonymous
>> nutter who is committing criminal damage (the legal equivalent of
>> theft).
>
> Just who is the nutter?
>
> At least the tyre slasher is doing it when the car is stationary.

Let us hope his next victim is you!

>
> --
> MrBitsy
>

"Jon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
>> More than 20 motorists in Hampshire have fallen victim to a mystery
>> vigilante who appears to target drivers spotted using mobile phones.
>>
>> All the car owners have found their tyres have been slashed and, in many
>> cases, a note on their windscreens.
>>
>> The sinister message, made from newspaper cuttings, says the driver was
>> seen using a phone.
>>
>> Hampshire Police are investigating the incidents in Gosport,
>> Lee-on-the-Solent and Stubbington.
>
> Investigating slowly I hope.

I thought that was all they did!

> --
> Regards
> Jon