UPDATE: Please note this story has been updated to include the context that the video shared on social media took place on 2 April 2025, a month after the cyclist was issued a ticket by the same officer for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 on 5 March 2025. While the officer who ticketed the cyclist in March is the same officer seen in the video filmed in April, the footage is not from the day he received the ticket.
A barrister and climate campaigner has accused City of London Police of wasting resources after he was issued a ticket for cycling without hands on the handlebars — with the officer allegedly claiming the action contravened Article 2 of the Human Rights Act — and criticised the force for prioritising the fining of 285 red-light-jumping cyclists in 2025 instead of focusing on rampant bike theft and phone snatching in the capital.
Paul Powlesland posted a video of the encounter, which happened on 2 April, on social media, stating that he had been stopped during rush hour and fined for “cycling no-handed” — something he argued was not an offence. City of London Police this afternoon explained that Powlesland was stopped and ticketed by the same officer a month prior to that video being filmed, on 5 March, for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
In the footage, Powlesland asks: “So anyone cycling no-handed in rush hour is going to get ticketed?” The officer replies: “If I see them, yes.”
Powlesland responds: “And you think that’s a valuable use of City of London Police time when bike theft is endemic? You don’t even investigate most bike theft. There’s phone snatching going on — you could be getting robbers. You’re letting phone snatchers and bike thieves go to ticket law-abiding citizens cycling no-handed. Do you honestly think that’s a good use of City of London Police time?”
The officer replies: “Cycling with no hands on the handlebars places others at risk, and contravenes Article 2 of the Human Rights Act.”
Laughing, Powlesland repeats: “Cycling no-handed violates Article 2 of the Human Rights Act? That’s the Right to Life, isn’t it?” The officer attempts to clarify: “No, I said it endangers people on the road,” at which point he cuts in: “No, you said me cycling no-handed violates Article 2. I think we’re done at that. It’s rather silly, isn’t it?”
I recently got stopped & ticketed by the City of London Police for, & I kid you not, “cycling no handed”. Even though it’s clearly not an offence, the officer said they were ticketing me under the Human Rights Act as I was infringing other people’s Article 2 ‘Right to Life’, in… https://t.co/LU4BUKZZ4w pic.twitter.com/3DBE6XUgSN
— Paul Powlesland (@paulpowlesland) July 3, 2025
While cycling without your hands on the handlebars is not illegal in the UK — unlike Cyprus, which made it an offence in 2016 — there is a grey area which allows the police to stop and fine cyclists if they are judged to be not in proper control of their bike. Here, the cyclist was issued with a ticket for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
A City of London Police Spokesperson said: “We’re aware of a social media post that shows a small clip from a longer interaction between a cyclist and a City of London Police officer on the 2 April 2025. The cyclist approached the officer and during their three-minute chat, the Human Rights Act was mentioned. The cyclist was not ticketed on this day, but he had approached the officer because she had issued him a ticket on the 5 March 2025 in the City of London.
“On the 5 March 2025, the officer observed the cyclist riding with his arms stretched out wide and off the handlebars during rush hour. The officer stopped the cyclist and issued him with a ticket for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. A ticket was processed on the 19 May 2025. Should the cyclist contest the ticket, officers will attend court and present any relevant evidence that we have obtained.”
The incident comes as City of London Police continues its summer enforcement campaign Safer City Streets, which has seen 284 cyclists fined for running red lights in the first six months of 2025 — over ten times as many as the 25 motorists penalised for the same offence — as the force launched a wider operation to tackle road offences, along with anti-social behaviour, and theft in the capital.
The figures were published to coincide with the start of Safer City Streets, a campaign that promises intelligence-led hotspot policing focused on the areas where the force says “crime and anti-social behaviour happen”, including red-light-jumping roads. According to the City of London Corporation, cycling in the city has increased by more than 50 per cent in the past two years, prompting calls from “pedestrians, motorists and cyclists themselves” for action.
“Utterly bonkers stuff”
Powlesland shared the video quoting the City of London Police’s tweet about the launch of the campaign, with his caption reading: “In the caption accompanying the video, Powlesland wrote: “Even though it’s clearly not an offence, the officer said they were ticketing me under the Human Rights Act as I was infringing other people’s Article 2 ‘Right to Life’, in case I fell off & injured them: utterly bonkers stuff.
“With bicycle theft basically legalised in the City due to the complete failure of the Police to bother investigating such thefts and people being regularly terrorised in London by e-bike phone muggers, it’s good to see the City of London Police concentrating the resources on what really matters.”

Regarding the force’s latest initiative, Commissioner Pete O’Doherty said: “Our flagship Safer City Streets prevention campaign is about listening to what matters to our communities – whether it is antisocial behaviour, phone snatching, or dangerous road use – and taking clear, visible action. Our new three-year policing plan details our determination to reduce the harm caused by high-volume crimes.”
He continued: “Our teams are out every day with our dedicated ward officers becoming a regularly and recognisable face to local residents and businesses. We’re also one of the few forces in the country where scenes of crimes officers go to every incident where forensics can be recovered. This is how we as a police force are going the extra mile to support victims and reduce crime.”
“Targeted and intelligence-led hotspot policing, with increased officer patrols funded, is creating safer streets for people who live, work and visit the Square Mile.”
Tijs Broeke, Chair of the City of London Police Authority Board, added: “People want to feel safe on our streets whether they’re walking to work, cycling through the Square Mile, or just enjoying the City.

The new enforcement numbers coincide with a behavioural survey commissioned by e-bike hire firm Lime and conducted by Thinks Insight & Strategy, which found that 52 per cent of London cyclists admitted to going through red lights, including 16 per cent who said they do so regularly.
Daily riders — primarily commuters — were the most frequent offenders, with 58 per cent admitting to the behaviour, compared to 43 per cent of those who ride monthly. Despite this, 82 per cent of respondents acknowledged that the practice is dangerous, while over 10 per cent said they were unaware that it is illegal.
Lime said the results highlight the need for both infrastructure improvements and rider education. Hal Stevenson, director of policy UK & Ireland, said: “This research confirms what we’ve long known; when cyclists don’t feel safe, they take risks.
“Cyclists also need to take responsibility. Running red lights puts everyone at risk. As part of London’s cycling community, we know Lime has a role to play.”
The company’s new Respect the Red campaign will include safety messaging on key junctions and route data sharing with councils to support “targeted improvements and enforcement”.
Tom Sleigh, chairman of the City of London Corporation planning and transportation committee, said: “Cycling in the City is booming – with a 70 per cent increase in just two years – and that’s something we welcome. But with that growth comes responsibility.
“Most people riding in the Square Mile are safe and respectful. But let’s be honest: red-light running by a minority puts everyone at risk. It’s not just illegal – it’s antisocial.”

Last year, it was reported that the police force issued 1,229 fines to cyclists in the 12 months following the launch of its Cycle Response Unit in July 2023. The unit — formed in response to “concerns from the community around road safety and anti-social behaviour” — was previously reported to have issued 944 red light fines in its first nine months.
By contrast, Metropolitan Police figures obtained under FOI and published last July showed that 4,067 cyclists were fined in London in 2023, amounting to an average of 11 per day. In the same report, Transport for London data from 2015 showed that 57,692 motorists — or 158 a day — were fined for the same offence, although up-to-date driver enforcement statistics have not been made public.
City of London Police have consistently maintained that their focus on cyclist offences does not come at the expense of driver enforcement. From July 2023 to April 2024, their Road Policing Unit stopped 3,852 vehicles, issued 1,678 traffic offences, made 92 arrests, and seized 203 vehicles for no insurance.
In July last year, actor Nigel Havers bizarrely (and falsely) claimed during a BBC segment that “no cars go through a red light” but “every cyclist does”, prompting road.cc contributor Laura Laker to respond that “all road users break the law in equal amount” and that policing cuts have worsened behaviour across the board.





















69 thoughts on ““You’re ticketing law-abiding citizens!”: Cyclist fined for “riding no-handed” as police officer claims it “contravenes Human Rights Act””
Tom Sleigh, chairman of the
I think his priorities are a bit out of order
Strike the just and he’s
Strike the
justand he’s right.Institutionally anti-cyclist
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Powlesland comes across as an
Powlesland comes across as an abnoxious piece of work. You’d think a barrister could come up with a better defence than “dont you have anything better to do”
If he was riding with no hands he was not in control of the bike – end of story.
I think it is a very big
I think it is a very big stretch to say that riding with no hands breaks any traffic laws. It wouldn’t stand up in court.
Arguing that it breaches the human rights act is however absolutely ridiculous, the stuff of sitcom punchlines.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
You certainly have less control of your bike riding no hands. Doing so in a busy environment / around lots of pedestrians is not a good idea, but he’s probably right about “not mandated” – HC rule 66 has “You should … avoid any actions that could reduce your control of your cycle” – but only a should. (Yeah, those can count towards another charge).
But … plenty of actions reduce control but wouldn’t be censured: changing gear with downtube shifters, being on the flats of your drops (as your hands not immediately over brakes), signalling (one hand off bars completely).
Then: whatabout unicyclists etc.?
Summary – it’s not the best thing to do at any time. And I’d bet most of us have done it. And unless there was some additional recklessness going on (haven’t watched vid) it does sound like the police just made themselves look silly. I’d guess they probably just wanted to say “look, stop that mkay?” but then got trapped into making up imaginary charges because someone was arguing with them?
Easiest way to not get a fine
Easiest way to not get a fine for jumping red lights … is not to jump red lights.
Loads of whataboutifery going on in that video.
Oldfatgit wrote:
But he wasn’t ticketed for jumping a red light, if he was I would say tough and suck it up, he was ticketed for allegedly infringing the human rights act by cycling no hands, which is, unless he was trying to do it through a crowd of cars or pedestrians or is completely crap at it, ridiculous.
Ok, but he’s a cyclist, I’m
Ok, but he’s a cyclist, I’m sure he jumped a red light earlier. Or yesterday. Good enough for me.
It’s in the article:
It’s in the article:
“… and criticised the force for prioritising the fining of 285 red-light-jumping cyclists in 2025 instead of focusing on rampant bike theft and phone snatching in the capital.”
So … he is using criticism of the police for fining red light jumpers as a whataboutit for him getting stopped.
Just because road.cc says
Just because road.cc says something, does not make it true. Very occasionally *ahem* they get stuff wrong.
He doesn’t mention jumping red lights at all. He criticises them for stopping him for riding ‘hands free’ – the red light bit was only brought in by road.cc.
Except the video has nothing
Never mind – Rendel got there while I was faffing about doing something else.
Over here in France, it is
Over here in France, it is often perfectly legal for cyclists to go through red lights, usually when turning right or going straight on at a T-junction and where their trajectory won’t cross motorised traffic for whom the light is green. In other situations I respect red lights whilst on my bike.
As a pedestrian I will cross the road when the red man is showing if it is safe to do, so maybe some cyclists take a similar attitude. After all they are the ones who will get hurt if they have misjudged the other traffic.
I can also understand why some cyclists ‘anticipate’ a red light changing in order to move off safely and get up to speed before motor vehicles catch up. Also there are some really annoying stretches of urban road with traffic lights every 200 or 300 metres, which are timed to go green for motor vehicles travelling along the road at around 20 or 25 mph, but which go red just as the slower cyclist arrives at the junction even when there is no traffic waiting to cross the junction.
Studies show that when traffic systems are designed to take cyclists’ needs properly into account, very few cyclists break the road traffic laws.
Is it not against human
Is it not against human rights to restrict someone’s bodily movements (tie them up)?
Whilst I’m not sure how much
Whilst I’m not sure how much sympathy I have for him – the vibe of the whole conversation sounds just like when a speeding motorist says, “Shouldn’t you be focussing on proper crime”, and riding hands-free IS more risky than riding with your hands on the bars – but claiming that the increased risk means he’s breaching the Human Rights Act and the right to life is hilarious. On that basis, they should be stopping and ticketing every single motorist using an internal combustion engine…
brooksby wrote:
If they pursue cyclists with equal fervour as motorists are pursued for having a hot drink / handful of crisps in one hand and adjusting the sound system / satnav or even juggling a phone in the other … the odds are very much in the cyclists’ favour…
Except of course a) that is so normal as to “overwhelm the police” so unlikely to be pursued
b) probably they’d just note the plate / car description; look forward to fun with “but my car was stolen (yeah, it came back…) / cloned plates mate / wasn’t me driving, no idea who / I do not recall that (Scottish defense).
c) “only momentary guv”
d) drivers doing this are less obvious as a driver is hidden within the car. And – just occasionally, when it suits… – people *notice* cyclists because they’re not a common occurence!
My point was that an ICE
My point was that an ICE generates air pollution. And air pollution affects everyone’s right to life way more than a cyclist riding no-handed…
Yeah but road tax pays for
Yeah but road tax pays for that (dont you know that us smokers put more in than we take out because we pay more tax then die earlier) and a motor car is your right to life haven’t you heard of freedom of movement do you want to limit the jobs people can commute to what about social activities and shopping or stop people having families because they cant take their kids to school or the doctor do you want to trap disabled or old people in their houses what about vulnerable women?!
(No subject)
https://www.clientearth.org
https://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press-releases/lack-of-action-on-pollution-violates-right-to-life-europe-s-top-human-rights-court-rules/
(No subject)
OnYerBike wrote:
Looks to me like we’re going to see climate change accelerate in our lifetimes: https://www.icm.csic.es/en/news/major-reversal-ocean-circulation-detected-southern-ocean-key-climate-implications
Someone needs to let the
Someone needs to let the unicyclists know about this…
And wheelchair racers who go
And wheelchair racers who go handsfree between every push.
mitsky wrote:
Oops – I didn’t read your comment before posting my one.
My proudest emergency stop was when I was unicycling on the pavement by Temple Meads Station and some kid (7 years old?) ran straight at me, so I performed a quick step-off, catching my uni behind me (which could have caused a nasty bruise if it hit the kid).
Ok, she’s had a total ‘mare
Ok, she’s had a total ‘mare citing the Human Rights Act, that’s laughable – not least because they must both be thinking of the European Convention on Human Rights.
But riding no hands near Bank (I think) is not a great idea – lots of pedestrians, not all of whom look before crossing etc. If a police officer stopped me doing it, fair cop.
I would hope though that the police would have a quiet advisory word first rather than going straight to a FPN – and perhaps they did, before he got argumentative and started filming.
I think 2 is very, very
I think 2 is very, very relevent.
For about a year had to go into london office once a week, just up the road from Bank;
Fairly sure EVERY day (i.e. out and back) I have ridden in I have had to take minor evasive action for pedestrians stepping into road at Bank junction… First few times fortunately was going slow while trying to figure out route (and where i had previously gone wrong…); after that always cautious because of having had 6 iirc pedestrians step out in front of me in 4 trips (people assuming that the first person to step out actually looked) I assume someone WILL step out so I NEED to allow for it… (not as if going quickly will make any difference beyond sitting 10-30s longer at the next traffic light…)
TBH on recent twitter stuff re fines for cyclists RLJ in City of London (CoL), I think that a bigger issue than the 25 vs 300 ratio is what is happening in a larger area as well as other offences.
In CoL cyclists are now nearly half of all traffic; RLJ is similar rates given opportunity; but opportunity is higher for cyclists (rider in front stopping doesn’t stop riders behind filtering past and RLJ’ing). At which point 10:1 is high, but not completely rediculous. Also seem to remember some stats suggesting about 1/3 to half of all actions re traffic offences are against cyclists in CoL, which isn’t actually that unreasonable given traffic breakdown.
The issue is when CoL seems to be doing nearly as much road policing as much bigger forces (presumably because they can do half of it against cyclists so not get accused of ‘war on the motorist’…)
IIRC, it wasn’t a million
IIRC, it wasn’t a million miles away from here (Bank / London Bridge end) that Robert Hazeldean (name from memory) got done for riding into a phone zombie – you have to have wits about you.
The comparative rates stuff is hard to interpret but you can bet that, even if they’re actively looking out for RLJ drivers too, they’re not counting the gazillions of amber gamblers.
They also won’t be including
They also won’t be including any drivers jumping advanced stop lines.
Reality is it’s the only offence where cyclists cause comparable harm to drivers (at least by number of incidents)
I expect the 1:10 ratio is also skewed by it being relatively easy to prosecute cyclists for red light jumping – half a dozen officers on foot pulling riders over into 3 parking spaces (one for the police van, 2 for processing all riders) Vs needing police cars and 2 spaces + change for every car stopped (one for suspect car, one for police car, and space for processing)…
Many, many years ago I had
Many, many years ago I had this discussion with a policeman. Was riding no hands, heard car behind me, so put finger on the bars (for their benefit, not mine). Police car passes so I take finger off the bars & sit back up. Police car stops! I explained that if would take as long to get my hands on the brakes whether I was holding the bars or not, I also noted that when a car passed I would have a digit on the bars. Police move on.
I can ride a unicycle, but not well enough to consider going near anything. My old bike, I could ride all day, up hill & down dale.
It all depends, as they say.
Presumably any “ticket” is in
Presumably any “ticket” is in fact a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty, and must specify the alleged offence? I have no intention of following the link to TwiXter to see if there is any more nuanced discussion, but I presume the specified offence was, in fact, careless cycling?
The mention Article 2 was probably a bit overdramatic, but arguably technically correct to some extent – i.e. Article 2 obliges the State to protect everyone’s right to life, and therefore enforce laws designed to protect people from bodily harm.
Best to ban people having a
Best to ban people having a shower, walking downstairs, using ladders. If it saves one life …
OnYerBike wrote:
Since drivers kill an average of 5 people a day I guess banning cars is imminent then!
I don’t understand? I thought
I don’t understand? I thought the police had decided that kind of judgement of distances requried specialist forensic analysis – how could a regular officer be sure his hands were really off the bars just by looking?
Meanwhile, when I sent the
Meanwhile, when I sent the police bikecam footage of an HGV driver tailgating me whilst waving both hands in the air and revving his engine, NFA.
Several years ago I sent
Several years ago I sent Surrey Police footage of a driver holding his phone in two hands while filming out the window as he drove along a road near a popular scenic lookout. It was politely and kindly explained to me that because there was no evidence the driver was “not in proper control”, no action would be taken. (This is not a criticism of the officer processing the case, I think he was doing the best within the guidelines he had been given.)
Although I will mention that I happened to also have footage of a close pass from the same driver the same day and that did (I believe) trigger a notice of intended prosecution, at least.
I would like to see those
I would like to see those guidelines as as much as getting one hand off the steering wheel just casually for the sake of it gets you an instant fail on a practical driving exam. So does staring away from the road in front of you. Even placing both or either of the hands on the steering wheel other than on the 10/2 o’clock spots, unless you are taking a tight turn, can get you a minor mark, or even a fail if you keep doing it during the exam.
Yep, this guy’s an idiot
Yep, this guy’s an idiot
How is cycling no handed in the City of London, at rush hour, a good idea?
How are you meant to brake?
Very glad he got fined
Not disputing the general
Not disputing the general point but there is an answer to the last question (though I would guess not the right one in his case). It’s just possible he had a coaster brake or was riding fixed.
* runs away before everyone remembers the last track bike rider in London who may have diminished people’s opinions of cyclists *
You mean Charldemort? 😐
You mean Charldemort? 😐
But, yes, good point re. braking. Probably should’ve also mentioned control of steering etc.
Mainly confused why this guy seems to equate riding in central London with riding in an empty park
I’ve seen worse – cyclists
I’ve seen worse – cyclists riding with no hands in traffic, trying to look at their handheld smartphones.
Where precisely in the video
Where precisely in the video does it show the context of the cyclist’s behaviour, whether he was on a road or a cycle path, whether there was anyone else around him, for how long his hands were off the bars, what speed he was doing, whether he was maintaining a straight line or any other evidence regarding his heinous breach of the human rights act? I ride through central London in rush hour most days and there are plenty of points where it would be perfectly safe to ride no handed if desired.
It’s here, so will have been
It’s here, so will have been on road or footpath, and it’s usually pretty busy https://maps.app.goo.gl/1k6TcWWsJ7pnGDWm8.
quiff wrote:
Well if the cyclist was heading west towards St Paul’s the street looks pretty empty in your picture!
May be moot anyway now it’s
May be moot anyway now it’s been clarified he wasn’t actually stopped on this day, but just taking the opportunity to waste police time after the event.
To paraphrase Anatole France,
To paraphrase Anatole France, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, to steal loaves of bread, and to ride no-handed during rush hour.”
I used to cycle no-handed all
I used to cycle no-handed all the time, on the road and on the pavement and it was completely safe for others (I did hurt my wrist one time as I was experimenting with chopped down toe-clips and crashed into a lamp-post that was hidden behind some overhanging foliage). However, the important distinction is that I was on a unicycle.
It’s really not difficult to
It’s really not difficult to get on my bike and take responsibility for how I ride it.
bleating about being stopped and fined by the police is absolutely pointless unless you’re an activ….. oh.
Northumber_lad wrote:
The issue I have is when the police are highlighting some careless behaviour (riding no-handed) and issuing fines, but also ignoring far more dangerous behaviour by others (e.g. drivers using phones). Making a mistake whilst riding no-handed can of course injure others, but the vast majority of time will injure the rider themselves and thus provides a strong incentive to pay attention and be careful. Meanwhile, drivers are insulated from that feedback loop and so we need police to focus their efforts on the far more dangerous behaviour that becomes endemic if left un-checked.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think part of the difficulty is that they are usually set up as different policing operations (this week we’re focusing on cycle offences etc), so you inevitably get people complaining that you’re picking on one group even if next week it’s something else. That said, a cycling bobby like this would be very well placed to spot phone use in traffic.
Northumber_lad wrote:
I take responsibility for how I ride. I’ve also been stopped by the police for not riding in a cycle lane. Which of course, is not illegal and is explicitly endorsed in the highway code, and the cycle lane had a parked car in it. I’ve been told that on one occasion my lights were too bright, on another that the exact same lights were not bright enough.
Your argument assumes that the police are knowledgable of relevant laws, good faith actors, and unbiased. Sadly, when it comes to cycling, all too often they are not.
I dont have the sewer that is
I dont have the sewer that is X but I noted that this has just gone up today.
UPDATE: Please note this story has been updated to include the context that the video shared on social media took place on 2 April 2025, a month after the cyclist was issued a ticket by the same officer for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 on 5 March 2025. While the officer who ticketed the cyclist in March is the same officer seen in the video filmed in April, the footage is not from the day he received the ticket.
So are we meant to understand this so called barrister deliberately sought out a police officer whom he’d already had a negative reaction with?
He’s not coming across any better as this develops is he?
Anyone seen the full sorry tale on Xhitter?
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Depends. How many people work for the City of London Police – given that the City of London is about twenty square feet…? – so is it likely you’d keep encountering the same officers?
brooksby wrote:
Well, one square mile – rather famous for it. The City of London police has about 850 full-time officers but the Cycle Response Unit (of which one assumes this officer is a member as she is wearing a cycle helmet) is just two sergeants and eight constables, so if you’re going to be pinched by them more than once the odds of it being the same officer again are relatively high.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Or simply that, having received a FPN for careless cycling in March, he carried on regardless and got another in April, then filmed himself complaining about it. Zero sympathy.
Er, no – it explicitly says
Er, no – it explicitly says that he didn’t get another in April.
What Secret Squirrel has
What Secret Squirrel has quoted above doesn’t explicitly say that. But from another report it does sound like he approached the officer on 2 April, rather than her stopping him.
The bit SS quoted doesn’t,
The bit SS quoted doesn’t, but the updated article itself does:
My bad, didn’t realise the
My bad, didn’t realise the article had been updated – only came here today via the comments.
It’s really not difficult to
It’s really not difficult to get on my bike and take responsibility for how I ride it.
bleating about being stopped and fined by the police is absolutely pointless unless you’re an activ….. oh.
It’s really not difficult to
It’s really not difficult to get on my bike and take responsibility for how I ride it.
bleating about being stopped and fined by the police is absolutely pointless unless you’re an activ….. oh.
It’s really not difficult to
It’s really not difficult to get on my bike and take responsibility for how I ride it.
bleating about being stopped and fined by the police is absolutely pointless unless you’re an activ….. oh.
You took the trouble to edit
You took the trouble to edit your post but not address any replies. As I recall you are in the police force yourself. Is that correct?
Not sure they’ve edited it –
Not sure they’ve edited it – they just seem to be coming back occasionally to repeatedly post the same thing. 🤷♂️
Ok. That’s even more stupid.
Ok. That’s even more stupid.
So egregious is this clear
So egregious is this clear breach of Human Rights, this scourge of mankind was very lucky to have escaped a long stay at Nuremburg. A rare good news story, revealing as it does, that there is no longer any violent crime, robbery, TWOCKing etc etc with which the Police have to waste their time.
No hands in traffic ? Crazy .
No hands in traffic ? Crazy . No excuses or deflection . Crazy
Once again the CPS and Police are at fault. They don’t really worry about the law as they can usually find one to fit around their needs. And once again it’s only when they are stood up to that they are forced to run away.
Once again the CPS and Police are at fault
There may be occasions in which the police and the CPS are independent entities, but in most of the cases on here, the CPS is just an excuse deployed by the police to excuse inaction over really blatant offences. What police officers are violently opposed to is people reporting offences, particularly when they send indisputable video, because the reports could take matters out of the hands of the police. They like to prosecute people they don’t like, such as cyclists, and to have the option of forgiving people they do like, such as drivers in big cars or people they know. Whataboutery is getting a Bad Press on here, but it’s a perfectly reasonable objection when, for instance, video is provided of drivers committing MUST NOT offences such as RLJs and they’re forgiven by the police ‘because everybody does it’, yet a big thing is made of the offence when cyclists are involved. The assertion may not be palatable, but there are a lot of lying, crooked b******s in the Police.