Complete numpty gets what he deserves from the Police...!

timbob

timbob

timbob

Soldato
Joined
27 Nov 2002
Posts
3,127
If you've a spare 45 minutes and fancy a good old chuckle, try these videos:




The long and short: Chap is "exercising his god given right to travel", disputes that his car is a mechanically propelled vehicle, has decided he is exempt from needing tax and insurance, and has rescinded his driving licence. Apparently since he is "travelling" and not "driving", he doesn't need one. He apparently has no name, no address, no surname, and can't remember his date of birth.

It takes 2 police cars, and (from what I can count) 4 BiBs three quarters of an hour at the side of the road to eventually arrest him for failing to provide details. They seize his Mercedes, give him a seizure form (which he refuses to sign), and inform him that the only way to reclaim it will be to turn up at the compound with his licence, insurance and MOT certificate... Oops!!

He then launches into a tirade about them illegally stealing his car, as he hasn't consented to the seizure...

It would be funny if it hadn't wasted 3 full man hours of Police time, and put 4 officers in harm's way on the hard shoulder of the M1 for nearly an hour.

There isn't a part 4, but I'd like to think it involves him being hauled up by the court, told how the system works, and being forced to watch his car being crushed before being billed for it.
 
More people buying in to this freeman on the land bull****... quite funny how stupid some people are.

Although... I do kinda wish it was true :)
 
If I was that policeman, there'd be a police brutality video on youtube right now :D

The guy in the car is a twonk
 
Morbius said:
I almost wish I hadn't googled it now. It seems that these people are to lawyers as the perpetual motion quacks are to scientists.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and they all seem to suffer from incredible selective blindness. In the "info" section under that youtube video, the guy has added a link to a letter he's received from the DVLA:

DVLA said:
I acknowledge that the common law right to travel still exists. However, if the travelling is to be done in/on a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road, the vehicle must be registered and licensed.

The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 requires vehicles to be taxed unless they are properly declared as being used or kept off-road (‘a Statutory Off Road Notification’). The tax disc must be properly displayed on the vehicle and the vehicle must be properly registered with the DVLA. Also, the driver must have valid motor insurance and small vehicles over three years old must have a valid MoT certificate.

In addition, the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires all drivers to hold a driving licence, which is valid and appropriate for the class or category of vehicle in order to drive legally on UK roads. Those holding valid driving licences issued outside Great Britain may be permitted to drive here depending on the circumstances.
Click to expand...

It appears he's read the first sentence and said "wahoo, my right to travel still exists!" and then completely ignored the rest of the letter - deciding that the Magna Carta (or somesuch) overrules it.
 
timbob said:
Indeed, and they all seem to suffer from incredible selective blindness. In the "info" section under that youtube video, the guy has added a link to a letter he's received from the DVLA:

DVLA
I acknowledge that the common law right to travel still exists. However, if the travelling is to be done in/on a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road, the vehicle must be registered and licensed. /snip
Click to expand...

It appears he's read the first sentence and said "wahoo, my right to travel still exists!" and then completely ignored the rest of the letter - deciding that the Magna Carta (or somesuch) overrules it.
Click to expand...

The odd thing is that by stating that "if the travelling is to be done in/on a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road, the vehicle must be registered and licensed" they have effectively stated that if it isn't then it doesn't need to be. As motors are classed as electrical devices not mechanical this means that under the DVLA's own words electric cars don't need to be.

Perhaps this will open a few loopholes in the years to come.
 
ubersonic said:
The odd thing is that by stating that "if the travelling is to be done in/on a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road, the vehicle must be registered and licensed" they have effectively stated that if it isn't then it doesn't need to be. As motors are classed as electrical devices not mechanical this means that under the DVLA's own words electric cars don't need to be.
Click to expand...

As soon as you add the drivetrain it becomes a mix of electrical and mechanical.
 
But it could be argued in that case that the drivetrain is not doing the propelling. Either way it's a weak twisting of the obvious intention.
 
ubersonic said:
The odd thing is that by stating that "if the travelling is to be done in/on a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road, the vehicle must be registered and licensed" they have effectively stated that if it isn't then it doesn't need to be. As motors are classed as electrical devices not mechanical this means that under the DVLA's own words electric cars don't need to be.

Perhaps this will open a few loopholes in the years to come.
Click to expand...

Motors are electical device?

Even if someone is willing to take this to Court and WIN, no doubt the govenment will take it to the European Courts. There is zero chance in hell that a car, electrical or fosil fuel propelled, or otherwise is going to be exempt from tax, licence and registration. It would set a terrible precedent that put the system back 100 years !
 
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences/
Definition of a Motor Vehicle

The term 'motor vehicle' is defined in section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 136(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as "a mechanically propelled vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads".

Although this is the legal definition, ultimately it is a matter of fact and degree for a court to interpret as to whether or not a vehicle is a motor vehicle at the time of the incident.

The term mechanically propelled vehicle is not defined in the Road Traffic Acts. It is ultimately a matter of fact and degree for the court to decide. At its most basic level it is a vehicle which can be propelled by mechanical means. It can include both electrically and steam powered vehicles.

Intended or adapted for use on roadsis also not defined by statute and again ultimately a matter for the court to decide based on the evidence before it.

There has, however, been extensive case law on the subject and the main point that emerges is what is known as the reasonable man test as per the following cases:
Click to expand...

http://www.mibclaim.co.uk/resources/library/cases/burns-currell-1963/
 
Normally on the cop shows they ask the people they stop to please step out of the car and come and take a seat in the cops vehicle, I don't remember ever seeing someone refuse, so how come this guy was allowed to sit in his car?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom