The man, aged in his fifties, was stopped by PCSOs in Acomb for cycling on the pavement, and offered advice at the scene.
When he refused to give his details to the PCSOs, and would not accept a fixed penalty notice, warranted officers were called to assist, and he further refused to give his name or any details. The officers then arrested the cyclist and took him into custody.
A North Yorkshire Police spokesman said the man continued to refuse to give his details at the police station, so was remanded in custody overnight to appear before court for cycling on the pavement.
*sighs*
When he appeared before York and Selby Magistrates' Court on July 1, The Press understands he told the court he had legally changed his name to "I Am That I Am", and refused to give any further details.
Great, a God complex. I thought all pavement cyclists came with those?
He was released on bail to appear for a trial over the alleged cycling offence on September 7.
One to watch with a big bag of popcorn!
15 comments:
No, not all cyclists are nutters. I'm a cyclist and I'm not a nutter. Well OK not as much of a nutter as this guy then.
Stonyground
Gosh, Julia. You delight in your buckets of popcorn as much as you relish a hatred for cyclists. Eat and hate in the extra comfort of a new Toyota Land cruiser, with XXXl seating and memory padding...plus that enormous 60" of front hip room, twin popcorn holder and refrigerated snack compartment. Ideal for expeditions to the tuck shop and bakery.
If he was arrested, then he would have been searched at the Police station. His identity could then have been ascertained from documents held in a wallet/bum bag, etc. I had a similar situation when in the job. The driver of a vehicle refused to give details following a motoring offence, was arrested, and denied being the person shown as the registered owner or keeper or the person named on the driving licence. I then arrested him on suspicion of theft (of the motor vehicle and documents) and told him he would be held in custody to appear in court the next day. He still refused to give details, even to the court, and to his dismay, was remanded in custody pending contact with the owner of the vehicle and documents, as we had not been able to contact him! He very soon began talking. In those days, the Police could play those silly games as well. Happy times indeed!
Over to you, Melv.
Penseivat
Hooray! The fight-back begins.
More and faster, please.
Why would he appear for trial if they don't know who he is?
Bucko,
The first appearance is to establish identity and to plead guilty or not guilty. As he refused to give his identity or to give a plea, the court remanded him in Police custody until it could established that a major crime (theft of motor vehicle and possibly other serious offences) had been committed. This would take the form of contacting the owner of the vehicle and documents and obtaining a loser's (victim's) statement. This was in the days when Police did the prosecution and presented the case in court. Of course, we knew, or reasonably believed, that the person in custody was the owner of the vehicle but until that was established, we had a duty to ensure a vehicle theft had not taken place. As mentioned above, this was in the days when we could play just as silly games as those who felt they were above the law or that they were cleverer in such situations. Can't do it now though. Too many self appointed guardians of human rights or politicians too eager to make a name for themselves.
Penseivat
Yup, it's not like the old days, Penise...the 'happy times' are gone. Nowadays, plod are far too greedy to share their bribes.
Never taken a bribe, Melv, unless you count the slice of cherry cake and a cup of tea while taking a witness statement from a nice old lady whose evidence put a rapist away for 12 years. Never took advantage of any "Warrant Card Discounts" either. I'm afraid I was so honest, I was boring!
Penseivat
God complex? My first thought was Popeye complex...
Sounds like a 'Freeman on the Land' Loonspud to me.
Retired
Bunny,
Mr Penseivat your method of dealing with idiots sounds like a sound one.
Out of interest if the person refuses to give details could they be described as preventing the right to their own fair trail, a bit of an inverse human rights problem? Sorry middle aged law student coming out in me.
Bunny,
No idea on the second point as the "Human Rights" roadshow had not started. On the first point, he made a conscious decision not to tell anyone who he was (until he realised the consequences) so any prevention of a fair trial (or initial plea) was of his own doing. In those days it was expected that people took responsibility for their actions.
Penseivat
Bunny,
If I recall correctly in a commercial case Fastrack v Morrisons which was decided under the HRA, Fastrack had gone to adjudication to settle a dispute with Morrisons for non-payment. Morrisons had refused to participate and then refused to pay out the amount of money awarded against them. Fastrack then had to take Morrisons to court to get the adjudication enforced, Morrisons said that its human rights had been breached as it had not had a fair trial, it was held that by refusing to participate Morrisons had prevented themselves from having a fair trial and therefore were liable.
I think that even in this day and age that failure to participate would have the same impact, which is negative for the idiot. The trouble is that idiocy seems to becoming the norm.
Bunny,
I retired from the Police over 10 years ago and so can only refer to criminal law, and a limited amount of civil law, as it was then. As far as I can see, with all the social experiments and liberal, tree-hugging, legislation brought in by those 'who know better' than we, the legal processes seem to take 2 steps back for each step forward. One thing I do know is that the connection between law and justice is very tenuous. Good luck in your studies, my head hurts, and I'm going down the pub now!
Penseivat
"No, not all cyclists are nutters."
True ;) But it does seem the normal ones are the exception, sometimes.
"His identity could then have been ascertained from documents held in a wallet/bum bag, etc."
As Retired points out, if he's a little bit of an 'eccentric' with regards to the laws of the land, would he be carrying any? I'd have thought a bank card at least, but you never know. People can be strange.
" In those days it was expected that people took responsibility for their actions. "
Oh, how I want those days back... :(
Post a Comment