The police reform act...
12 January 2003, 10:39 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anyone heard of this little gem? What it amounts to is if a policeman suspects you will be doing stuff in your car which will "cause alarm distress of nuisence to others", he can take your car off you.
Heres the legislation in full:
59 Vehicles used in 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 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.
60 Retention etc. of vehicles seized under section 59
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to-
(a) the removal and retention of motor vehicles seized under section 59; and
(b) the release or disposal of such motor vehicles.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision-
(a) for the giving of notice of the seizure of a motor vehicle under section 59 to a person who is the owner of that vehicle or who, in accordance with the regulations, appears to be its owner;
(b) for the procedure by which a person who claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle seized under section 59 may seek to have it released;
(c) for requiring the payment of fees, charges or costs in relation to the removal and retention of such a motor vehicle and to any application for its release;
(d) as to the circumstances in which a motor vehicle seized under section 59 may be disposed of;
(e) as to the destination-
(i) of any fees or charges payable in accordance with the regulations; and
(ii) of the proceeds (if any) arising from the disposal of a motor vehicle seized under section 59;
(f) for the delivery to a local authority, in circumstances prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations, of any motor vehicle seized under section 59.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that a person who would otherwise be liable to pay any fee or charge under the regulations shall not be liable to pay it if-
(a) the use by reference to which the motor vehicle in question was seized was not a use by him; and
(b) he did not know of the use of the vehicle in the manner which led to its seizure, had not consented to its use in that manner and could not, by the taking of reasonable steps, have prevented its use in that manner.
(4) In this section-
"local authority"-
(a) in relation to England, means the council of a county, metropolitan district or London borough, the Common Council of the City of London or Transport for London; and
(b) in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or county borough;
"motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in section 59.
Am I alone in being a little scared of this? OK apart from the obivious threat to the cruise scene, it could be argued that a noisy exhaust causes "nuisence" and thats your motor gone and turned into a 6'x6' coffee table.
It would also be a perfect opportunity for arshole coppers to flex their muscles at people who **** them off and like to drive.
However I do like section 4....
astraboy.
Heres the legislation in full:
59 Vehicles used in 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 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.
60 Retention etc. of vehicles seized under section 59
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to-
(a) the removal and retention of motor vehicles seized under section 59; and
(b) the release or disposal of such motor vehicles.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision-
(a) for the giving of notice of the seizure of a motor vehicle under section 59 to a person who is the owner of that vehicle or who, in accordance with the regulations, appears to be its owner;
(b) for the procedure by which a person who claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle seized under section 59 may seek to have it released;
(c) for requiring the payment of fees, charges or costs in relation to the removal and retention of such a motor vehicle and to any application for its release;
(d) as to the circumstances in which a motor vehicle seized under section 59 may be disposed of;
(e) as to the destination-
(i) of any fees or charges payable in accordance with the regulations; and
(ii) of the proceeds (if any) arising from the disposal of a motor vehicle seized under section 59;
(f) for the delivery to a local authority, in circumstances prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations, of any motor vehicle seized under section 59.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that a person who would otherwise be liable to pay any fee or charge under the regulations shall not be liable to pay it if-
(a) the use by reference to which the motor vehicle in question was seized was not a use by him; and
(b) he did not know of the use of the vehicle in the manner which led to its seizure, had not consented to its use in that manner and could not, by the taking of reasonable steps, have prevented its use in that manner.
(4) In this section-
"local authority"-
(a) in relation to England, means the council of a county, metropolitan district or London borough, the Common Council of the City of London or Transport for London; and
(b) in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or county borough;
"motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in section 59.
Am I alone in being a little scared of this? OK apart from the obivious threat to the cruise scene, it could be argued that a noisy exhaust causes "nuisence" and thats your motor gone and turned into a 6'x6' coffee table.
It would also be a perfect opportunity for arshole coppers to flex their muscles at people who **** them off and like to drive.
However I do like section 4....
astraboy.
12 January 2003, 10:51 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see it now.....get pulled over because they don't like the look,sound of your car or you...check your car over and find nothing wrong so last resort is to say your causing distress to the public with your in the face spoiler
12 January 2003, 10:58 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Yate, Bristol
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTF has this country come to? So a ******* copper can take your car if, in his opinion, you are causing distress to others? This could be open to massive abuse from the police. He takes your car from you because he doesn't like you, and says 'he was causing distess to others' without any proof, even if you weren't doing anything? What can you do in this situation? Nothing. It's his word against yours, and they'll believe the fcucking copper. This country has become a joke.
12 January 2003, 11:01 AM
#4
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Radiator Springs
Posts: 14,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scared... I'm bricking it big time
This is gonna have the p*ss taken right out of it and people like us are gonna end up on buses[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] What happened to the legal system, why can one officer deem it necesary to crush your car? One person's idea of a nuisance could be completely different to another's
Taking it the other way, I followed a slow moving caravan the other day, that was annoying and I was alarmed by the police car which drove an inch off my back bumper for a while, then decided to use his blues to get past me[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Can we do anything to get this chucked out?
This is gonna have the p*ss taken right out of it and people like us are gonna end up on buses[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] What happened to the legal system, why can one officer deem it necesary to crush your car? One person's idea of a nuisance could be completely different to another's
Taking it the other way, I followed a slow moving caravan the other day, that was annoying and I was alarmed by the police car which drove an inch off my back bumper for a while, then decided to use his blues to get past me[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Can we do anything to get this chucked out?
12 January 2003, 11:05 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Yate, Bristol
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think everyone who drives a car and is p!ssed off about this should drive to No10 and stage a massive demonstration. Thousands of us should decend on London. I'm serious.
12 January 2003, 11:28 AM
#6
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Radiator Springs
Posts: 14,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah nice idea DreXel and I agree to a point but how do we get home when the feds turn up with car transporters to get rid of the nuisance
I have been against the anti this country comments but now I feel that it really is starting to go up it's own ****[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
I have been against the anti this country comments but now I feel that it really is starting to go up it's own ****[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
12 January 2003, 11:29 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<Can we do anything to get this chucked out? >
Nothing we can do mate, its already got royl accent and is coming in first of feb. I'm not happy and more than a little scared as well.
astraboy.
Nothing we can do mate, its already got royl accent and is coming in first of feb. I'm not happy and more than a little scared as well.
astraboy.
Trending Topics
12 January 2003, 12:55 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a copper
Please don't shout at me.
We have had some training input on this and the force i work for are using this legislation to aim at the cruises.
The cruise in guildford causes a massive amout of disruption and winds the residents up cos people are driving around in cars and they have large ice installs that are at full blast.
Would you like 300 cars outside your house on a Sunday night every week with their stereos up full blast?
I am personally not going to use this to take a car if someone winds me up and there is nothing else i can do.
DON'T FORGET. THEY HAVE TO GIVE YOU A WARNING FIRST BEFORE THEY TAKE THE CAR. So whatever the warn you for stop doing until police are gone and no problem!
Hope this helps,
Milly
Please don't shout at me.
We have had some training input on this and the force i work for are using this legislation to aim at the cruises.
The cruise in guildford causes a massive amout of disruption and winds the residents up cos people are driving around in cars and they have large ice installs that are at full blast.
Would you like 300 cars outside your house on a Sunday night every week with their stereos up full blast?
I am personally not going to use this to take a car if someone winds me up and there is nothing else i can do.
DON'T FORGET. THEY HAVE TO GIVE YOU A WARNING FIRST BEFORE THEY TAKE THE CAR. So whatever the warn you for stop doing until police are gone and no problem!
Hope this helps,
Milly
12 January 2003, 01:29 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
under s5 it states that if you commit another offence to which yourt vehicle can be siezed they will take it, this legislation is already in power
The other parts are
A) Impracticable means on the very rare occassion that it is not possible to give a warning to the driver
B) they arre targetting the driver no the vehicle so if the driver gets a warning then drives a different car they can take the second car they were driving
c)The officer believes that a warning has been given by another officer
d)If you have had a warning in the last 12 months they can take your car.
The powers are going to be used in a way to reduce the nuisence. I suspect that a syatem of taking photos/cctv of your cars and then sending you a warning letter will occur. Do it again in 12 months they take your car.
Trust me we a short of parking for police cars let alon siezed cars!!!!!!!
The other parts are
A) Impracticable means on the very rare occassion that it is not possible to give a warning to the driver
B) they arre targetting the driver no the vehicle so if the driver gets a warning then drives a different car they can take the second car they were driving
c)The officer believes that a warning has been given by another officer
d)If you have had a warning in the last 12 months they can take your car.
The powers are going to be used in a way to reduce the nuisence. I suspect that a syatem of taking photos/cctv of your cars and then sending you a warning letter will occur. Do it again in 12 months they take your car.
Trust me we a short of parking for police cars let alon siezed cars!!!!!!!
12 January 2003, 01:36 PM
#14
so your statement " So whatever the warn you for stop doing until police are gone and no problem!" Is a bad piece of advice isnt it!
You know as well as i that the police will setup a deal with a carpound company to store these vehicles, they wont be housed next to your patrol vehicles.
You may be a decent guy, but there are plenty out there that will not be like you and will abuse these powers. You know that is the truth.
You know as well as i that the police will setup a deal with a carpound company to store these vehicles, they wont be housed next to your patrol vehicles.
You may be a decent guy, but there are plenty out there that will not be like you and will abuse these powers. You know that is the truth.
12 January 2003, 01:37 PM
#15
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Radiator Springs
Posts: 14,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you like 300 cars outside your house on a Sunday night every week with their stereos up full blast?
In all seriousness, I wouldn't give a f*ck, mainly cos I'm not mental and can learn to tolerate things unlike the miserable b*stards that have nothing better to do than spoil other peoples fun[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Follwing packs of cyclists, slow wagons and cars towing caravans can raise my blood pressure a tad but you just have to accept it and just get over it not make up some new law to ban them
Can we ban folk from going to church on a sunday, that's no different to a cruise is it, they meet turn up in cars, block the road and then sing songs at full belt, not to mention the bells[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
12 January 2003, 01:39 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to say but the UK is the worst example of a "nanny state" although that term softens what would be better described as a virtual dictatorship.
Speed cameras, surveilance, TV licences , restriction on personal freedom of speech through intimidation the list is endless. I love the country of my birth for many things but not the controlling attitude of the Govt and the peoples blind acceptance of the propoganda.
This kind of rot is endemic- its been happening for years- think about the Poll Tax, Criminal Justice Act, Congestion Charging, TV Licences et al.
"Lions led by donkeys" as the saying goes
The only thing that gives me any comfort is that eventually the British people won't take it anymore
Speed cameras, surveilance, TV licences , restriction on personal freedom of speech through intimidation the list is endless. I love the country of my birth for many things but not the controlling attitude of the Govt and the peoples blind acceptance of the propoganda.
This kind of rot is endemic- its been happening for years- think about the Poll Tax, Criminal Justice Act, Congestion Charging, TV Licences et al.
"Lions led by donkeys" as the saying goes
The only thing that gives me any comfort is that eventually the British people won't take it anymore
12 January 2003, 01:44 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You know as well as i that the police will setup a deal with a carpound company to store these vehicles, they wont be housed next to your patrol vehicles."
At the moment they store seized vehicles next to patrol ones!
I wouldn't be to worried at the moment wait and see. Police have so many powers to stop, search, arrest, seize etc but alot of the time they don't get used. It does worry me and my car could get seized, (already got a speeding fine copper told me i should have known better!)If you are not doing anything that causes distress don't worry.
If the car does get siezed get a solicitor and write to the police/courts. You can appeal and my get your car back
At the moment they store seized vehicles next to patrol ones!
I wouldn't be to worried at the moment wait and see. Police have so many powers to stop, search, arrest, seize etc but alot of the time they don't get used. It does worry me and my car could get seized, (already got a speeding fine copper told me i should have known better!)If you are not doing anything that causes distress don't worry.
If the car does get siezed get a solicitor and write to the police/courts. You can appeal and my get your car back
12 January 2003, 02:11 PM
#21
You can appeal and my get your car back
In the mean time you wait for months whilst our fantastic legal system spins its wheels. This law is a disgrace.
The only reason we dont have the Poll Tax is because people rebelled and made it imposible to administer. If we dont do that then nothing ever happens. If you cant see how unjust this law is you are seriously blinkered.
12 January 2003, 02:23 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well milly since you mention guildford, I'll prolly see you there tonight.
If you see a white 3-door cossie then dont seize it!
Seriously though I can see my vehicle being taken very easily. Paul "robocop" Yearwood must have been tugging himself stupid when this legislation landed on his desk.
If Surry police can block off both roads of the main drag through guildford, direct everyone with a modified car into a carpark (whilst letting everybody in a normal car go), Keep them there for three hours, go over each and every car with a fine toothcomb then warn them not to come down guildford anymore (whilst videoing them for evidential purposes) then I rather suspect that they might want to use this law to the maximum. Dont you?
astraboy.
If you see a white 3-door cossie then dont seize it!
Seriously though I can see my vehicle being taken very easily. Paul "robocop" Yearwood must have been tugging himself stupid when this legislation landed on his desk.
If Surry police can block off both roads of the main drag through guildford, direct everyone with a modified car into a carpark (whilst letting everybody in a normal car go), Keep them there for three hours, go over each and every car with a fine toothcomb then warn them not to come down guildford anymore (whilst videoing them for evidential purposes) then I rather suspect that they might want to use this law to the maximum. Dont you?
astraboy.
12 January 2003, 03:25 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another interesting little story from Sunday Telegraph, page 1, headlined "Don't bother about burglary, police told."
To summarise, police have been told only to investigate serious crimes (murder, rape, hate crimes, etc.) unless there is "immediate and compelling evidence, such as fingerprint or DNA material".
Less serious crimes will only be investigated if they were "solvable using proportional resources". "Crimes will be logged, but not solved."
I'm beginning to wonder wtf the police are for, beyond taxing car owners. If I were a burgler or car thief, i'd be thiking it was christmas again
Colin.
To summarise, police have been told only to investigate serious crimes (murder, rape, hate crimes, etc.) unless there is "immediate and compelling evidence, such as fingerprint or DNA material".
Less serious crimes will only be investigated if they were "solvable using proportional resources". "Crimes will be logged, but not solved."
I'm beginning to wonder wtf the police are for, beyond taxing car owners. If I were a burgler or car thief, i'd be thiking it was christmas again
Colin.
12 January 2003, 03:51 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A wile back my garage was broken in to i lost 4k of tools when asking the police to come and have a look they said sorry we have not got time hears your crime no but if it was a house and a 50 quid video they might come might! this country is going to the dogs theives have a free ride through the criminal justice system
if you protect your home you end up paying for the damage you do to the ****** the cort system is pathetic . the individual has no rights the ****** has all the aces........
if you protect your home you end up paying for the damage you do to the ****** the cort system is pathetic . the individual has no rights the ****** has all the aces........
12 January 2003, 06:21 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guildford cruise has never been a serious nusiance 
Just 'cause a few full time complainers have found something else to complain about. Why can't people be left to enjoy themselves?
It's not like they're criminals for ****s sake... at least most cruisers care about their cars and are therefore likey to have mundane things like insurance and MOT which all the dodgy peeps in their rancid old banagers don't bother with.
Surrey police used to be really cool... but I guess you're only as cool as your boss... remember during all the rave clamp down bollox in the late '80s the chief of Surrey police saying he had to balance personal liberty of the individual to have a good time with safety & wasn't therefore just going to shut downs raves... shame the leadership's not so enlightened now
[Edited by peelo - 1/12/2003 6:22:49 PM]
Just 'cause a few full time complainers have found something else to complain about. Why can't people be left to enjoy themselves?
It's not like they're criminals for ****s sake... at least most cruisers care about their cars and are therefore likey to have mundane things like insurance and MOT which all the dodgy peeps in their rancid old banagers don't bother with.
Surrey police used to be really cool... but I guess you're only as cool as your boss... remember during all the rave clamp down bollox in the late '80s the chief of Surrey police saying he had to balance personal liberty of the individual to have a good time with safety & wasn't therefore just going to shut downs raves... shame the leadership's not so enlightened now
[Edited by peelo - 1/12/2003 6:22:49 PM]
12 January 2003, 07:15 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry been out all afternoon, I am 21 male from Surrey
And yes i visit Guildford as well so it is likely that i have been videoed for evidential value.
Despite what some of you may think I am like you.
Fast Cars and having fun (safely).
I think this law may be used in the wrong manner by some people but I am not one of them. Burglars, Drug dealers and car theives are far more appealing than confiscating your scooby!
And yes i visit Guildford as well so it is likely that i have been videoed for evidential value.
Despite what some of you may think I am like you.
Fast Cars and having fun (safely).
I think this law may be used in the wrong manner by some people but I am not one of them. Burglars, Drug dealers and car theives are far more appealing than confiscating your scooby!
12 January 2003, 07:44 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Milly: I think it's very cool you can come on a forum and not get wound up or come over heavy. I've come across coppers on forums who can't really... umm... 'get with the programme'... they don't get the forum vibe and the chance to exchange views like we wouldn't usualy be able to etc... Hope there are more like you I'm from Epsom: born, raised, educated. Live in Kingswood now.
I'm from Epsom: born, raised, educated. Live in Kingswood now.