Yet another cyclist ploughs into a parked car.

On 06/02/2020 03:58, JNugent wrote:
On 05/02/2020 20:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/02/2020 12:12, JNugent wrote:

Did they arrest you as well?

If not, why not?

After all, if the police cannot identify the driver, it could have
been anyone, including you. Should we all expect an eventual knock on
the door?

Well, you come from Liverpool so I guess you're always looking over
your shoulder.

I hope the arrested persons each have access to good legal advice.

I expect that after years of experience the police have decided that
it is easier to work out what was what when they take them to be
interviewed separately at the police station rather than inviting them
to have a chat at a pub.

Arresting a person without having reasonable suspicion that the arrested
person has committed (not "might have committed") an arrestable offence
is... an unlawful arrest.

"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"

"Right, you're all under arrest"

It is impossible (for a normal person) to reasonably believe that each
of three persons was driving a single motor vehicle (or riding a single
bicycle) at a particular moment.

It might be possible for someone like you to believe it. But probably not.

The former does not imply the latter.

On 06/02/2020 10:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/02/2020 03:58, JNugent wrote:
On 05/02/2020 20:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/02/2020 12:12, JNugent wrote:

Did they arrest you as well?

If not, why not?

After all, if the police cannot identify the driver, it could have
been anyone, including you. Should we all expect an eventual knock
on the door?

Well, you come from Liverpool so I guess you're always looking over
your shoulder.

I hope the arrested persons each have access to good legal advice.

I expect that after years of experience the police have decided that
it is easier to work out what was what when they take them to be
interviewed separately at the police station rather than inviting
them to have a chat at a pub.

Arresting a person without having reasonable suspicion that the
arrested person has committed (not "might have committed") an
arrestable offence is... an unlawful arrest.

"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"

"Right, you're all under arrest"

For what?

For not driving?

It is impossible (for a normal person) to reasonably believe that each
of three persons was driving a single motor vehicle (or riding a
single bicycle) at a particular moment.

It might be possible for someone like you to believe it. But probably
not.

The former does not imply the latter.

On 06/02/2020 12:31, JNugent wrote:
On 06/02/2020 10:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/02/2020 03:58, JNugent wrote:
On 05/02/2020 20:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/02/2020 12:12, JNugent wrote:

Did they arrest you as well?

If not, why not?

After all, if the police cannot identify the driver, it could have
been anyone, including you. Should we all expect an eventual knock
on the door?

Well, you come from Liverpool so I guess you're always looking over
your shoulder.

I hope the arrested persons each have access to good legal advice.

I expect that after years of experience the police have decided that
it is easier to work out what was what when they take them to be
interviewed separately at the police station rather than inviting
them to have a chat at a pub.

Arresting a person without having reasonable suspicion that the
arrested person has committed (not "might have committed") an
arrestable offence is... an unlawful arrest.

"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"

"Right, you're all under arrest"

For what?

For not driving?

It is impossible (for a normal person) to reasonably believe that
each of three persons was driving a single motor vehicle (or riding a
single bicycle) at a particular moment.

It might be possible for someone like you to believe it. But probably
not.

The former does not imply the latter.




They can arrest on suspicion and to allow the prompt investigation of an
offence. (you can see it/hear it on tv cop shows)

On 06/02/2020 12:37, MrCheerful wrote:
On 06/02/2020 12:31, JNugent wrote:
On 06/02/2020 10:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/02/2020 03:58, JNugent wrote:
On 05/02/2020 20:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/02/2020 12:12, JNugent wrote:

Did they arrest you as well?

If not, why not?

After all, if the police cannot identify the driver, it could have
been anyone, including you. Should we all expect an eventual knock
on the door?

Well, you come from Liverpool so I guess you're always looking over
your shoulder.

I hope the arrested persons each have access to good legal advice.

I expect that after years of experience the police have decided
that it is easier to work out what was what when they take them to
be interviewed separately at the police station rather than
inviting them to have a chat at a pub.

Arresting a person without having reasonable suspicion that the
arrested person has committed (not "might have committed") an
arrestable offence is... an unlawful arrest.

"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"

"Right, you're all under arrest"

For what?

For not driving?

It is impossible (for a normal person) to reasonably believe that
each of three persons was driving a single motor vehicle (or riding
a single bicycle) at a particular moment.

It might be possible for someone like you to believe it. But
probably not.

The former does not imply the latter.

They can arrest on suspicion and to allow the prompt investigation of an
offence.Â* (you can see it/hear it on tv cop shows)

The police may not just arrest anyone they feel like arresting.

https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights

QUOTE:
The police arrest procedure
If you’re arrested the police must:

- identify themselves as the police
- tell you that you’re being arrested
- tell you what crime they think you’ve committed
- explain why it’s necessary to arrest you
- explain to you that you’re not free to leave
ENDQUOTE

These are not alternatives to each other. All of them have to be
satisfied for an arrest to be lawful.

This one - "tell you what crime they think you’ve committed" - is
arguably the most important of them, whilst "explain why it’s necessary
to arrest you" is a close second. Both of those things must be done
immediately after the arrest.

It cannot possibly be necessary to arrest people who are not thought to
have committed a crime.

It isn't a crime to be on the spot after an offence is believed to have
taken place. It isn't even a crime to be a passenger in a vehicle whose
driver commits a traffic offence.

On 06/02/2020 12:46, JNugent wrote:
On 06/02/2020 12:37, MrCheerful wrote:
On 06/02/2020 12:31, JNugent wrote:
On 06/02/2020 10:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/02/2020 03:58, JNugent wrote:
On 05/02/2020 20:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/02/2020 12:12, JNugent wrote:

Did they arrest you as well?

If not, why not?

After all, if the police cannot identify the driver, it could
have been anyone, including you. Should we all expect an eventual
knock on the door?

Well, you come from Liverpool so I guess you're always looking
over your shoulder.

I hope the arrested persons each have access to good legal advice.

I expect that after years of experience the police have decided
that it is easier to work out what was what when they take them to
be interviewed separately at the police station rather than
inviting them to have a chat at a pub.

Arresting a person without having reasonable suspicion that the
arrested person has committed (not "might have committed") an
arrestable offence is... an unlawful arrest.

"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"

"Right, you're all under arrest"

For what?

For not driving?

It is impossible (for a normal person) to reasonably believe that
each of three persons was driving a single motor vehicle (or riding
a single bicycle) at a particular moment.

It might be possible for someone like you to believe it. But
probably not.

The former does not imply the latter.

They can arrest on suspicion and to allow the prompt investigation of
an offence.Â* (you can see it/hear it on tv cop shows)

The police may not just arrest anyone they feel like arresting.

https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights

QUOTE:
The police arrest procedure
If you’re arrested the police must:

- identify themselves as the police
- tell you that you’re being arrested
- tell you what crime they think you’ve committed
- explain why it’s necessary to arrest you
- explain to you that you’re not free to leave
ENDQUOTE

These are not alternatives to each other. All of them have to be
satisfied for an arrest to be lawful.

This one - "tell you what crime they think you’ve committed" - is
arguably the most important of them, whilst "explain why it’s necessary
to arrest you" is a close second. Both of those things must be done
immediately after the arrest.

It cannot possibly be necessary to arrest people who are not thought to
have committed a crime.

It isn't a crime to be on the spot after an offence is believed to have
taken place. It isn't even a crime to be a passenger in a vehicle whose
driver commits a traffic offence.



perhaps it is bad reporting, and they were areested for different
offences, failing to identify, uninsured driver, no licence, drugs,
obstructing the police, attempting to pervert the course... etc.

On 06/02/2020 12:37, MrCheerful wrote:
On 06/02/2020 12:31, JNugent wrote:
On 06/02/2020 10:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/02/2020 03:58, JNugent wrote:
On 05/02/2020 20:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/02/2020 12:12, JNugent wrote:

Did they arrest you as well?

If not, why not?

After all, if the police cannot identify the driver, it could have
been anyone, including you. Should we all expect an eventual knock
on the door?

Well, you come from Liverpool so I guess you're always looking over
your shoulder.

I hope the arrested persons each have access to good legal advice.

I expect that after years of experience the police have decided
that it is easier to work out what was what when they take them to
be interviewed separately at the police station rather than
inviting them to have a chat at a pub.

Arresting a person without having reasonable suspicion that the
arrested person has committed (not "might have committed") an
arrestable offence is... an unlawful arrest.

"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"

"Right, you're all under arrest"

For what?

For not driving?

It is impossible (for a normal person) to reasonably believe that
each of three persons was driving a single motor vehicle (or riding
a single bicycle) at a particular moment.

It might be possible for someone like you to believe it. But
probably not.

The former does not imply the latter.




They can arrest on suspicion and to allow the prompt investigation of an
offence.Â* (you can see it/hear it on tv cop shows)

Which is exactly what I said earlier in this thread:

I quote: Possibly because they didn't know who was the driver, so they'd
all be arrested on suspicion. Also collusion could be an arrestable offence.

--
Bod

On 06/02/2020 13:55, MrCheerful wrote:
On 06/02/2020 12:46, JNugent wrote:
On 06/02/2020 12:37, MrCheerful wrote:
On 06/02/2020 12:31, JNugent wrote:
On 06/02/2020 10:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/02/2020 03:58, JNugent wrote:
On 05/02/2020 20:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/02/2020 12:12, JNugent wrote:

Did they arrest you as well?

If not, why not?

After all, if the police cannot identify the driver, it could
have been anyone, including you. Should we all expect an
eventual knock on the door?

Well, you come from Liverpool so I guess you're always looking
over your shoulder.

I hope the arrested persons each have access to good legal advice.

I expect that after years of experience the police have decided
that it is easier to work out what was what when they take them
to be interviewed separately at the police station rather than
inviting them to have a chat at a pub.

Arresting a person without having reasonable suspicion that the
arrested person has committed (not "might have committed") an
arrestable offence is... an unlawful arrest.

"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"

"Right, you're all under arrest"

For what?

For not driving?

It is impossible (for a normal person) to reasonably believe that
each of three persons was driving a single motor vehicle (or
riding a single bicycle) at a particular moment.

It might be possible for someone like you to believe it. But
probably not.

The former does not imply the latter.

They can arrest on suspicion and to allow the prompt investigation of
an offence.Â* (you can see it/hear it on tv cop shows)

The police may not just arrest anyone they feel like arresting.

https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights

QUOTE:
The police arrest procedure
If you’re arrested the police must:

- identify themselves as the police
- tell you that you’re being arrested
- tell you what crime they think you’ve committed
- explain why it’s necessary to arrest you
- explain to you that you’re not free to leave
ENDQUOTE

These are not alternatives to each other. All of them have to be
satisfied for an arrest to be lawful.

This one - "tell you what crime they think you’ve committed" - is
arguably the most important of them, whilst "explain why it’s
necessary to arrest you" is a close second. Both of those things must
be done immediately after the arrest.

It cannot possibly be necessary to arrest people who are not thought
to have committed a crime.

It isn't a crime to be on the spot after an offence is believed to
have taken place. It isn't even a crime to be a passenger in a vehicle
whose driver commits a traffic offence.



perhaps it is bad reporting, and they were areested for different
offences, failing to identify, uninsured driver, no licence, drugs,
obstructing the police, attempting to pervert the course... etc.

Maybe.

Only a maximum of one of them could be "thought" to be without
compulsory insurance, of course. But that is not an arrestable offence
(though an uninsured vehicle may be seized).

OTOH, they could conceivably all have been found in possession of
illegal drugs. or perhaps even of assaulting a police officer.

On 06/02/2020 14:54, Bod wrote:
On 06/02/2020 12:37, MrCheerful wrote:
On 06/02/2020 12:31, JNugent wrote:
On 06/02/2020 10:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/02/2020 03:58, JNugent wrote:
On 05/02/2020 20:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/02/2020 12:12, JNugent wrote:

Did they arrest you as well?

If not, why not?

After all, if the police cannot identify the driver, it could
have been anyone, including you. Should we all expect an eventual
knock on the door?

Well, you come from Liverpool so I guess you're always looking
over your shoulder.

I hope the arrested persons each have access to good legal advice.

I expect that after years of experience the police have decided
that it is easier to work out what was what when they take them to
be interviewed separately at the police station rather than
inviting them to have a chat at a pub.

Arresting a person without having reasonable suspicion that the
arrested person has committed (not "might have committed") an
arrestable offence is... an unlawful arrest.

"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"
"Were you the driver?" "No"

"Right, you're all under arrest"

For what?

For not driving?

It is impossible (for a normal person) to reasonably believe that
each of three persons was driving a single motor vehicle (or riding
a single bicycle) at a particular moment.

It might be possible for someone like you to believe it. But
probably not.

The former does not imply the latter.




They can arrest on suspicion and to allow the prompt investigation of
an offence.Â* (you can see it/hear it on tv cop shows)

Which is exactly what I said earlier in this thread:

I quote: Possibly because they didn't know who was the driver, so they'd
all be arrested on suspicion.

So they could arrest you as well. After all, if they don't know who was
driving, they also don't know who wasn't driving. It might have been
you. Or more likely, another poster who has no respect for the law.