Heads up from Teshi for WLC meet 18th Sept

by **Lord Ben** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:37 pm

Just nattering with Teshi on the WLC forum - he said it's probably a load of crap, but asked me to get the word out just in case,

" Police have warned about coming down and handing out "Section 59's" which might be a load of bull but just let everyone know to cruise in like last time."

by **Lord Ben** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:50 pm

Just in case they DO want to turn up and be dick heads, please see below details outline EXACTLY what this means and what your rights are. I suggested printing a copy out and sticking it up in your window or leaving it on your dash, just in case you need the info to contend and question the grounds in which they're issuing it.

SECTION 59
Vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance:
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which —
(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public, he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).

(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).

(3) Those powers are —
(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any
premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power
conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).

(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers
conferred on him by this section unless —
(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the warning.
(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if—
(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;
(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or
(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.
(8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.
(9) In this section —
• “driving” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52);
• “motor vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads; and
• “private dwelling house” does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.

by **s33tsy** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:05 pm

think it will be good to see some section 59 handed out to those like last time were driving like priks towards the end coz if they done that and hit my car i would go nuts coz theres no need to be drifting around wheres theres loads of cars and people walking around

by **Sisson** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:06 pm

I already have one that ends December, that was given to me for an absolutely poor reason considering they never really had 100% evidence it was me

by **Lord Ben** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:13 pm

Fair enough for people driving like dick heads, but for the sake of a few, I ain't having it, being associated with it or being tarred with the same brush in the event one person does decide to rip their fuckin handbrake. takes one person to bury a good thing like this, and more times than not, one person to screw a whole LOAD of other people other. Just a precaution on our part

by **s33tsy** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:28 pm

yeh defo mate ino wat u mean the police always say well hes got alloys and a loud exhaust he must drive like a c**t wen in fact most of us dont because we wanna look after our cars not kill them... just hope no one gets a ticket but if anyone does then i hope its whoeva is driving like a prik

by **Sisson** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:29 pm

Cheers for the heads up dude, and yea there is loads o people round my way that screwed it up for my mates, they drive like idiots, we got the punishment for it.
It just ruins it for everyone else

by **Richie** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:45 am

The officers that were there last time were pretty reasonable, I'ts probably just a rumour to stop anyone driving like twats. Which is a good idea really.

by **Lord Ben** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:22 am

More than probably, and i'll definitely give some of them credit - i got pulled over the other week, safest gavva I've ever met - knew i was going far too fast,just said keep it down, fair enough - I remember when they turned up last time, they seemed more interested in just seeing what was going on - if that's as far as it goes, I have absolutely no problem with their presence

by **Richie** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:21 pm

Lord Ben wrote:More than probably, and i'll definitely give some of them credit - i got pulled over the other week, safest gavva I've ever met - knew i was going far too fast,just said keep it down, fair enough - I remember when they turned up last time, they seemed more interested in just seeing what was going on - if that's as far as it goes, I have absolutely no problem with their presence

Yeah exactly, nice people at the end of the day, show them respect (as is don't act a fool) and everyone has a decent night. Lets just see the WLC stewards doing more this time, good stuff.