Stuart H

Hi folks,

Just a quick note to explain why we have taken the decision to remove the numberplate of this vehicle.

We have been made aware of a situation on another website where the registration of an unmarked police vehicle was published. The administrators of the site received a letter from solicitors acting for that police force, stating that if any details of unmarked police vehicles were published on the website, court action would follow.

Therefore, we think the safest move is to avoid the publishing of any details.

Cheers

Stuart

[This message has been edited by Stuart H (edited 17 November 2000).]

Richard F

Hmmmmm

So why is it illegal to publish the numbers of unmarked cars? Is it because then people might be able to avoid being nicked? I thought that the police's main priority would be to deter crime not detect it by stealth. I'd like to know what law is broken by publishing those reg numbers...

BTW, I'm not having a pop at webbie or StuartH but this smacks of scare tactics rather than any legitimate and legal reasoning.

Denz

Just to let everyone know in the harlow area that, i nearly got nicked for dangerous driving, (all i did was overtake someone)
The copper was an aragant pig (Well over the top). he was driving an Alfa 156 V6 with full boddy kit and white wheels.

His plate was ** ***, complete T&sser

<B>***Moderated by Stuart H after consultation with webmaster***</B>

[This message has been edited by Stuart H (edited 17 November 2000).]

ex-webby

Hi Richard..

I'll explain...

At times it can seem like we just moderate on a whim, but I promise you there is very little that is as important to me / the rest of the people who put their time into scoobynet for nothing..

Stuart and I have been in discussion about this for the last month or so and have been really torn at times between which way to go.

On one hand it is information that some people on here may find useful...

on the other, the leaked information may actually harm or destroy a carefully planned police operation by tipping someone off to the presence of a covert vehicle.

Eventually, we came to the decision that the benefits are greatly outweighed by the negatives.

The "legal reasons" comment is MOSTLY to say just that, "for reasons of a legal nature", as the actual legality of publishing this is unclear.

I hope this clears this up. If not, feel free to continue the discussion.

Kind regards

webmaster

chiark

Hadn't thought about the non-traffic aspect of this. Makes perfect sense.

JayDee

Webbie and Stuart are obviously reasonable people.

But this is a case of a particular ("MAY" actually harm a police operation) - being used as justification for the general (therefore we won't publish ANY information)

Police need to be accountable for their actions as does anyone - which is why we have a judicial system that purports to be open and public - so lets have publicity

This is also an example of Large State organisation (Police) bullying a small one (Scoobynet)

Again, I must emphasize, this is not a criticism of Stuart (who does not make policy), but a criticism of the way this country seems to going

Actually, it is not the Police at all - it is the government (look at the difference in Police behaviour between the first and second petrol price protests - left alone, the police acted reasonably, but the second time round they had been well nobbled by TB and JS

Gawd - I don't 'arf ramble when I get going

JD

(must learn to type better!)

[This message has been edited by JayDee (edited 17 November 2000).]

logiclee

I know how unjust it can seem when a Police officer talks to you like scum. I have a friend/ex-collegue who joined the force a few years ago and he had an attitude problem even before he joined.

What we must remember though is these cars are not used by just one driver, the said officer may be in a T5 the next shift.

The covert vehicle may be on a carcrime team the following day trying to catch the scum who steal our Scoobs.

Most importantly if the hardcore criminals had information on covert cars it could put the lives of decent officers with families at risk.

I think Webbie and Stuart are right on this one, legal action or not.

Lee

Beef

Plus they can only say it <B>may</B> be being used in a covert operation, as to say it <B>was</B> being used in such and operation would confirm that there was such an operation going on, compromising security, etc etc etc, blah blah blah.

Mo

As I'm always driving in this area perhaps the least we could have is the colour and the prefix?

Zak

banshi

I am simply lost for words, other than to agree entirely with Mo.

For the moment allow me to use a couple of classic phrases.

"I don't Bloody believe it" plus Arnie's classic:
"I'll be back"

Probably post myself directly to Muppet thread to save Webbi the trouble!!

MorayMackenzie

Interesting... how perverse! The police (working for and paid for by taxpayers) called the solicitors in to prevent the publication of the registration number of a car we (taxpayers) actually own...

Kevin2000

I agree totally with Mr Mackenzie on this one.

Blow Dog

Sorry,
I, too, am against the police on this one.
cem

JGRIFF

Moray, I'm suprised at your attitude, there are usually sound operational reasons for not disclosing reg numbers.
Denz, he can't have been that much of a to..er as you "nearly got done" much better to have had a stiff bollocking than an appearance in court, or had you not thought about that bit?

Mr.Cookie

Just gonna add my two penneth

I agree with webby on this one at the end of the day are you really going to be looking at reg plate as your going along, i might also say although possibly a bit far fetched imagine what a terrorist group could do with that information.

Simon

banshi

Friends, Romans and Muppetmen lend me you BBs.

Even though the lunatics are running the asylum today I'm continuing the thread here.

Before going any further, can I emphasise that the following comments are generalised. I certainly have no wish to cause personal offence. Furthermore, I fully appreciate and respect the decision taken by both Stuart and our moderators/administrators.

I feel Richard made a valid comment, but no one would wish to see Scoobynet jeopardised. We have neither the political muscle or financial clout to take on the establishment. The motorist is not favoured by Civil Liberties pressure groups, so it's status quo unless we get a column in Private Eye, or I win the National Lottery.

But, surely this is a level of spin even Blair and his cronies would be proud of.

I'm aware of a few unmarked cars, there's a nice red T5 and a little silver Mondeo for example (locations would indicate traffic duties) oh forgot the silver A4 and the Green Pug. In addition there is a Merc, a couple of Beamers and a few years ago a Lotus Carlton. Mersysides answer to Miami Vice? All these appropriately finished in funereal Black. The men behind at wheel of the latter motors I am happy to accept are close to the action and maybe even undercover. Therefore I don't expect them to pull me over and check my tax disc.

But using these cars used in a covert operation, can't see a lot of "perfect sense" in that. Correct me if I'm wrong but is the aim of surveillance to compile intelligence in a discreet manner? To blend into surroundings without arousing suspicion in order to prevent a crime and/or apprehend a criminal?

The Russian Secret Police weren't very secret because they were well fed and well dressed.
Well, last time I looked down the road it was littered with flash Alphas, M3s and Mercs. If you turned up in the back streets of Moss Side or Tottenham in G reg 1.6 Escort I'm sure they'd make you as "Bill" immediately.

As for hindering the arrest of local villains, does anyone seriously expect a gang prepared to spend weeks shipping cocaine around the world or carefully planning a bank job would omit the occasional stroll past the local station car park. Even the local petty crims know the CID cars.

Do I need to continue?

Just because the Government treat everyone like morons there's no need to become one.

Next time I bump into my brief I get an opinion but must go now. Need to slip out and sell some smart new dayglo uniforms to the SAS.

B

P.S. Denz, were you shown a set of blues or a traditional "over there sonny" finger.

[This message has been edited by banshi (edited 17 November 2000).]

sunilp

Just because you pay taxes towards something doesnt mean you own it!.....how do you figure that your actual tax deducted is the very same money allocated to provision of a specific asset?, go back to economics class.

sonu

Interesting thread.

Refering to the title, Prevocative Undercover Police cars. There are cases where the police setup traps by driving fancy cars fast, just so they can tempt drivers to join in.

This happened to me. I was driving to Oxford at about 75 on the slow lane of the M Way and I saw a Jag speeding by at about 110. I thought it would be fun to keep up with him, so I accelerated to about 100. A little later, a Volvo joined in, and followed me. Found out that the Volvo was video taping me and that it was all a setup.

Thanks

Sonu

ex-webby

Thanks to those of you that support the decision.

To people such as banshi...

I am pleased that you can see that there are two sides to this, so I suggest you spend the next month carefully deliberating what action should be taken on this subject because you hold the readership of this board in such high regard, even above your own personal opinions. Because this is exactly what Stuart and I have done for the last month or so.

We don't live in an ideal world...

As I said in my post above.... There are arguments for and against, but after discussing it for over a month, we have decided that the arguments against publishing these reg plates outweigh the arguments for.

I would also point out that Stuart did NOT just argue against publishing these (as may be expected), but I totally stand by the decision as I have the luxury of many hours of discussion behind it.

All the best

Simon

[This message has been edited by webmaster (edited 18 November 2000).]

RonaldoH

Sonu...u claim that they (the police i presume) had set it up that a Jaguar (presumably another police car-or manned police car) was sent speeding past you for you to follow?
So...that would suggest somewhat foul play (Stuart would probably agree)-however if it was never proven that the Jag was the boys in blue the likelyhood was they were following the Jag, you joined in and therefore increased the risk X2, hence why you were "nicked"

I remember seeing this on Police Camera action where a sierra cossie joined in a race with a porsche...not sure the outcome though....surely you could of argued that the police were acting irresponsibly by doing that (Stuart...not sure the stance on that...) I would cry "foul play", but then they probably called "LBW" when you followed
Thats a bummer, but at the end of the day, the boys in blue do look after us. You wait until you need one, then your outlook changes...I can tell ya

MorayMackenzie

Guys,

I simply pointed out how I thought the concept was perverse if you take into account the fact that the police and their hardware are funded by us taxpayers. I do understand their concerns about the reg number, but I think they are pushing it too far by calling in the solicitors.

(I once shifted a lurking unmarked car by taking a photograph of it... hehe.)


Sunil,

Who pays for the police car... the taxpayer.

Why is the police car purchased... to aid the police in their function of serving the public.

How are the police funded... by taxes paid by the taxpayers they are "serving".

Therefore us taxpayers own those assets. Unless the government has privatised itself recently... H.M.Government PLC!?

Is this concept too abstract for you?

Your argument that you can't trace my tax to a specific asset does not affect the fact that we taxpayers all own a share of those assets.

I'm glad to say that I never went to Economics class in the first place.

Moray

Ian Cook

Sonu,

Sorry, a car driving past you at 110mph is not provocative ! Does that mean every car that overtakes you is trying to provoke you into racing it ?

As for the publishing of reg numbers, behind Simon on this 100%, if you are so distracted trying to read every single cars reg number while driving to see if its X,Y or Z plod car, then you are NOT paying attention to the road, and are very likely to be another statistic, very quickly !

Ive got me coat, standing by the door and the taxi is just pulling up !

[This message has been edited by Ian Cook (edited 18 November 2000).]

Dave T-S

Ooh this is heading for one of those dust-ups - haven't seen one since the open face helmet thread. SDB - same stance as usual - it's your neck on the block - and if it was mine I would take the same line. Might not be the decision of my heart - but the head makes the decisions that keep you out of the libel courts!!

JGRIFF

I'm going to make it really easy for you, the number of covert cars is finite, the number of covert ops is infinite, so therefore the cars get circulated between squads and tasks. The car that is being used to stop you today, may well be one of the vehicles being used to stop a team of "ringers" who specialise in Subaru's tomorrow, who just happen to have targetted your car!. therefore it is in YOUR interest not to circulate vehicle index numbers. Professional villains collect intelligence, just like the police from a variety of sources. If you are going to steal an Impreza scoobynet is a really good place to gather all sorts of information, now do you understand

banshi

Simon please excuse me if my first paragraph lacked clarity. ( Maybe a change is needed not: grub, pub, post but grub, post, pub )

I considered myself to be one of the group you thanked for their support. "I fully appreciate and respect the decision taken.....we have neither the political or financial clout to take on the establishment".

May I add there are not two sides to this, I wouldn't expect you to run the risk of litigation. YOUR DECISION IS CORRECT, take the safe option no question, I don't need further deliberation or hours of discussion. The position adopted by the constabulary, or at least one force, might warrant debate.

My comment related more to the way a PR card is Played in 2000, in the 60s we had public information now we have spin. Unfortunately the population at large cannot recognise the difference.

Finally, whilst I may appear a recent convert; naively believing there was a charge I followed the bb for sometime before registering. I waited until I was sure I'd be getting value for money. Therefore I would not "expect" Stuart to simply tow the line, at least not here. He treads a difficult path with considerable expertise, combining good advice with good humour.

I also recognise you devote considerable time and energy to making Scoobynet the excellent forum it is. Active members of most clubs are liable to get more criticism than praise and here it is grossly unjustified. Recognising I am currently a freeloader and have no authority to criticise, I simply meant to contribute to an exchange of views.

I feel the veiled sarcasm was unwarranted. Nevertheless please accept my apologies if I have inadvertently caused any offence. A number of threads appear to have developed an obsidional tone, not wishing to see another acrimonious exchange I will refrain from further comment.

Regards

sunilp

Moray, you dont OWN the asset, whilst you appear to display some logic your decision outcome is flawed - go do some more thinking and researching if necessary!

BTW a privatised company doesnt have to be a PLC and FYI PLC is correctly written as "plc" only (i.e. lower case)

Denz

Been away so sorry for late reply,

I respect the decision taken by the moderators I was unaware that printing the reg was going to cause a problem. Woops

JGRIFF.

He would have nicked me but he was off duty, I have since been told that if he is not wearing a uniform then he couldn’t do any thing. (If I am wrong someone please correct me).


Banshi,

He drove around until he found my car parked outside my office then walked in to my office, spoke to my receptionist in a very rude and arrogant manor, he "DEMANDED to speak to the Subaru driver immediately".


Just so we are all clear the reason I was annoyed was his attitude. I know that there are certain members who are reading this that are in the police force so could one of them explain why the copper, had too walk in to my office and speak to my receptionist in a very aggressive manor, then when the manager asked him what the problem was, reply "just get him down hear". My point is he should not have spoken to them in that way and he should not of had the attitude he had.

If he was a bit more polite then perhaps I would have cooperated better.

I know I am not allowed to publish his reg but I may be able to give a description.

He looked like ET

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Denz

His attitude sucks - whatever you may or may not have done, he was abusing his position as an officer of the law to do such.

If you were doing something that he or Essex Police could have nicked you for, then so be it, take the hit.

<B>BUT</B>

To come in & give it large at your place of work is an abuse of power.

Report him.

Butty

iTrader: (2)

Sonu,
Look at it from the Jags point of view.
It was probably Fatty Two Jags going home for his tea.
Next thing, a Scooby is tracking him at high speed.
He calls his escorts to stop you and you are banged to rights.
Lucky you weren't seen as a terrorist about to bump him off.

Perhaps I had better stop watching these Sweeny repeats.....

AWD

I agree with Puff. He could have easily asked discretely for you to accompany him outside and then spoken to you in private about his problem with your driving.

To embarass you at your place of work for a dubious indiscretion in uncalled for, and a definite abuse of power.

Report the to55er.