Footage has been widely shared on Facebook showing the moment two cyclists riding metres in front of a Surrey Police vehicle were spotted jumping a red light, before being stopped and issued a fixed penalty notice.
The incident happened in Epsom, Surrey Police later uploading the footage to social media, the video having been viewed more than 600,000 times over the weekend. Two cyclists are seen riding away from the town centre on the A24 Dorking Road when the pedestrian crossing traffic lights change from green to red as another person, also riding a bicycle, waits to cross.
In the footage, which has attracted almost 800 comments, the two riders are seen freewheeling for a second before continuing through the red light.
Surrey Police reported its officers saw the incident unfold and the two riders were stopped and fined. Sharing the news with the message “#RedMeansStop”, the Surrey RoadSafe page wrote: “Our #SPCasualtyReduction (Surrey Police) officers witnessed two cyclists ignoring a red light at a Pelican Crossing where a person was waiting to cross. They were both stopped and issued a fixed penalty notice.”
It’s not the first time this year that the Surrey RoadSafe account has shared footage of cyclists fined for riding through red lights. In January, a video was shared showing a group ride of four cyclists at a junction in Esher, the footage being widely shared on social media and online.
As the riders made the right turn a police vehicle was being driven just behind, the driver rolling up to the stop line as the group turned across the junction, the police following moments before the group was stopped and issued fixed penalty notices.
> Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights? Campaigners split on safety benefits
Some, including a lawyer from Leigh Day law firm, questioned why the video was “unnecessarily cropped to show the cyclists already passed the stop line and not crossing this when the light is red?”
“I don’t in any way dispute some cyclists contravene traffic signals and I don’t endorse that in any way. If you are law enforcement posting offences for public awareness — make sure you show the actual offence being committed. This doesn’t,” Rory McCarron said.
In response to the questions, Surrey Police released the full unedited footage a day later, lawyer McCarron commenting: “Thank you for showing the whole video. Justified FPN, no excuse. A lesson learned to the cyclists (and maybe the poster of the original video). Whilst this isn’t fatal 5, your work generally is applauded.”
Surrey Police also confirmed that all four had been issued with a £50 fixed penalty ticket for ‘contravention of a red traffic light’ and were “given suitable safety advice for the future”.
59 thoughts on “Cyclists who jumped red light in front of police stopped and fined, as force shares footage with “red means stop” warning”
Quote:
I can well imagine…
“See, this shows that ALL cyclists are law-breakers.”
“OK, that’s two instances to stack up against thousands of videos shot by cyclists of motorists doing far worse.”
“How DARE people invade OUR privacy and cause us to LOOSE our GOD-GIVEN driving licences.”
Phwoar, imagine all the
Phwoar, imagine all the raging hard ons the motorists got from that one. Cyclists being held accountable for their awful behaviour for once. If only the police were there all the time to catch these nasty cyclists like they are when people fly through red lights in their 2 tonne lumps of metal.
Inexcusable. Allows people
Inexcusable. Allows people like Iain Duncan-Smith and other Daily Telegraph buffers to tar all cyclists with the same brush.
I don’t condone what the
I don’t condone what the cyclist did. However, we are on a hiding to nothing if we give in to the Iain Duncan-Smiths of this world – with their logic, it just requires one naughty cyclist to justify their worldview. A battle that cyclists can never win. Far better is to push back against the entire logic of collective culpability. After all, it is pretty insane for anyone to claim collective culpability for drivers – that the bad behaviour of one somehow justifies punishment of all drivers.
I’m not suggesting that
I’m not suggesting that anybody give in to the IDSs of the world. But why give them ammunition, if it can easily be avoided.? Avoiding breaking the law is not giving in.
I believe that a senior cabinet minister once described IDS as being a bit dim ( even for an ex guardsman) – logical analytical thinking may not be his forte, but grabbing an easy, simplified argument will be.
Inexcusable. Allows people
Inexcusable. Allows people like Iain Duncan-Smith and other Daily Telegraph buffers to tar all cyclists with the same brush
This ‘tarring’ isn’t applied to motorists, and an entire police force, Lancashire Constabulary, has decided that the offence is so common (‘everybody does it’) it won’t take any action against motorists who are firmly convinced that ‘red means stop’ doesn’t apply to them- all of these were reported and all of the reports were ignored by the most hopelessly ineffectual and dodgy police force in the UK
https://upride.cc/incident/a15tjv_bmwm4_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/jo55chb_kiasportage_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/kl04ndo_vw_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/da21sww_leon_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/pl68tev_polo_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/de56ztv_discovery_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/ma08opb_crv_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/fh16vfa_rrover_redlightcross/
The PCC describes these ‘no action’ decisions as ‘operational decisions by the police’ which are nothing to do with the PCC
Mr Blackbird wrote:
Indeed.
“What about lawbreaking car drivers?” comments don’t help. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Mr Blackbird wrote:
Oh, please!
If every single cyclist obeyed every single traffic rule all of the time, and ceded priority to every passing motorist, and wore hi viz everything right down to their underwear, AND paid some sort of road use fee and wore an ID tag, then people like Iain Duncan-Smith and other Daily Telegraph readers would STILL find something to hate.
Ceding priority to motorists,
Ceding priority to motorists, wearing hi Viz and wearing id tags aren’t law as far as I’m aware. And most cyclists already pay road tax (along with income tax, vat, council tax), as they own cars. All I am saying is don’t give blimps like Duncan Smith easy cheap targets. And why shouldn’t cyclists obey the law?
I’m not saying they shouldn’t
I’m not saying they shouldn’t.
All I was saying, was that even if cyclists did Every Single Thing that the velophobes at the Torygraph requested then They would still hate us.
brooksby wrote:
Besides which it’s double standards. Some drivers routinely exceed maximum speed limits, often use mobile phones whilst driving and don’t pay enough attention to vehicles/bikes around them (not to mention countless other ways that they are dangerous and inconsiderate to others). Meanwhile, cyclists present far less chance of injuring/killing others and are being punished for carefully going through a red pedestrian light when it was obviously safe to do so.
I saw a creative maneuver
I saw a creative maneuver recently: a cyclist wanted to cross a junction with a red light so they made a left turn, a u-turn and finally another left turn, genius
In Qld, Oz you can ride of
In Qld, Oz you can ride of the pavement. Nothing illegal about leaving the road via the drop kerb, rolling across the adjacent crossing then rejoining. Left on green if possible, or leave the road and re-enter your original lane from the drop kerb.
Jump off the bike and run
Jump off the bike and run across. I cycle in trainers though.
Can somebody tell motorists.
Can somebody tell motorists. To them red means ‘get away with it if you can’, like every other rule.
Did Road.cc miss this news
Did Road.cc miss this news item?
Putney fatal collision 2 November 2024.
Is there a connection between
Is there a connection between the incidents?
If not, what’s your point?
From a legal standpoint both cyclists in the video deserve to be stopped by the police, no doubt and no further discussion needed. The police did their job.
But I guess I could be possible that I would have done the same… they checked if it’s clear to pass and did so… but it’s still wrong… problem is that the rules are mandatory for everyone not matter of car driver or cyclist. And if the cyclist demand “free pass after checking” car drivers could do the same.
Not making excuses for them,
Not making excuses for them, they broke the law and so deserved what they got. However it does seem from the video that the rider in black makes a thumbs up gesture towards the person waiting to cross (another cyclist); I wonder if that person had said go ahead lads, I’ll follow you or something similar. As I say, not an excuse but possibly an explanation. Certainly nowhere near as egregious or dangerous as the countless incidents of cyclists and drivers running reds I see every single day in London, but still, if you don’t want to get fined there’s this one weird trick you can use…
Rendel Harris wrote:
Is it being on first name terms with the Police and Crime Commissioner?
Rendel Harris wrote:
To me it highlights how pedestrian crossing lights are far better designed for motor traffic as they can require traffic to come to a stop even when there’s no-one crossing due to the “beg” time delay between someone pushing the button and crossing. If that crossing was a zebra crossing, then the same behaviour by the cyclists would be legal and of course cyclists are often trying not to come to a complete stop so that they can maintain momentum and reduce energy (also not falling off when you forget to unclip).
However, not knowing that there’s a police car behind you is poor situational awareness.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Indeed, “I’m afraid I’m going to ticket you for driving without due care and attention.” “Why officer?” “Because you just did that right in front of me and we don’t have a ticket for ‘being a complete chump’.”
hawkinspeter wrote:
Most road infra is motor infra – because first we gave all the space to the cars * and then we realised that humans equipped with cars were killing pedestrians and each other at publically-unacceptable rates, so had to retrofit stuff “for” pedestrians (actually only “because drivers”) and other drivers.
Pedestrian crossings vs. cyclists: we should just be able to say “you’ll have no problems when we put in cycle paths!“
In the UK unfortunately “more cycling” will play out in an environment where – to many – cycles are mini-cars. Plus people are “not expecting” cyclists (not looking for them – in cars or on foot). On foot people often “look” with their ears first and of course cycles are quiet. Then people mis-estimate cyclists’ speed (both too high and low).
There is also a population skew because we don’t have mass cycling (so few of the 8’s and 80s and notably fewer women). There are a certain fraction of cyclists are cycling ‘less socially’ (e.g. some delivery folks, crims too young or poor to own cars) and when there are only very few cyclists that is a bigger proportion.
* This was partly the result of “just let everyone share the road” but partly deliberate policy. There is an *awful* lot of money in the driving / freight / fuel business (plus of course spin-offs from creating things “because war”).
Rendel Harris wrote:
That’s where I would be laying my bet.
Must have been difficult for
Must have been difficult for the police to decide whether to prosecute the red light jumpers or the pavement cyclist. I guess it’s £50 vs £30 FPN, so red light for the win!
Yes, it’s illegal, but no one put at risk and perfectly safe. Nothing compared to some of the actually dangerous illegal activity on the roads that often goes unpunished.
I’ve checked on Facebook and
I’ve checked on Facebook and stopping the red light running cyclists was simply revenue raising and police time is better spent chasing real criminals…as to the cyclist on the footpath had his vehicle got a registration plate it would have been easy for the police to check if had responsibility for a string of pedestrian murders…typical police chasing down people who for all we know have an untarnished record and the heat of the moment and a concern for the environment meant slowing down wasn’t an option
HoarseMann wrote:
To be exact, it’s illegal in UK, both of the these two actions are legal in other places in the world, especially pavement riding.
A good point! I have also yet
A good point! I have also yet to see an intersection of cycle lanes being controlled by traffic lights in the UK. Usually, they’re completely unmarked as regards to priority. Nor have I ever seen a cycle lane in isolation that has a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing.
(Actually a good point about
(Actually a good point about priority / give way markings – perhaps we could bring in the simple Dutch “sharks’ teeth” system of triangles painted at junctions? If the triangle points towards you it’s your duty to give way. Also works as a “passive fallback” in conjunction with active things like traffic lights.)
Yes! And also we need roundabouts for cyclists (that’s only cyclists)! (Oh dear… we did *).
Because bicycles are basically cars and as dangerous as such. You certainly wouldn’t be able to cross the cycle path without a proper pedestrian crossing…
Of course this is snarky because in the UK a) most places seeing anyone cycling is a new and startling thing b) cycle infra is nowhere standard – we can’t even agree on a colour to mark it, if we even bother) c) because “change” it will still take years – maybe a generation – for everyone to adapt.
* TBF the UK is not the only place where the “bright idea fairy” has afflicted people – there are even a couple in NL e.g. here, or here; rightly derided.
I live locally to this – sad
I live locally to this – sad to see & a dumb move at the best of times, let alone in front of the polis. Fair play to them for actually taking action. Though had they not been wearing hi-viz the cyclists would have been invisible & would have got away with it 😉
That said, Surrey Police (in my experience) are growing ever worse at dealing with close passes & potential driving offences when you submit footage online – I’ve had several recently where I’ve been close passed (often either unecessarily, or more likely because the move is made into oncoming traffic or on a blind bend) by a matter of inches whilst out riding – yet always NFA. A year or so ago, footage of incidents involving passes less close/egregious were yielding positive results. I’m beginning to wonder if I need to actually be struck by a vehicle before it counts as a close pass in Surrey now?
Local to me too, and
Local to me too, and disappointing in the sense that Surrey Police will apparently prosecute a case like this while taking no further action on the close pass reports that you have submitted.
In both cases the law has been broken. Yet they are seen to take action in the “easy” case where nobody was in any real danger, but take no action where you were put directly at risk by the passing driver.
I bought a camera last week and have been using it on all my rides since then. Several run-of-the-mill close passes so far, but nothing quite dangerous enough to upload to the police. But from what you report, maybe it’s not even worth bothering? Are the Met. police any better?
No idea about the Met – have
No idea about the Met – have had very few reasons to submit anything whilst on the commute up to that London (CS7 is many things, but its treated me pretty well over the years). Like you, I get “standard” close passes all the time & have given up reporting them, even though technically they are probably well short of the required safe distance. Which is depressing really because it normalises poor driving standards & leads to worse behaviour in the long term because of the de facto validation that “close” is OK because no harm no foul last time & “hey, nobody’s looking” (even though you are & have evidence).
I honestly think you have to clearly be forced into evasive action (ie obviously rapidly change line / wobble / hit the kerb / fall off) for any kind of close pass to even be considered, which penalises good bike handling & confidence. And don’t you dare use any kind of “colourful” language in the event that you nearly end up another KSI statistic whilst Mr/Mrs School run piles past you alongside a line of parked metal boxes missing your elbow by no more than six inches, that’ll just be used against you. And besides – driving innit.
All you can do is submit the ones that leave you shaking/fuming for some time & hope for the best.
They’re as bas as the worst
They’re as bas as the worst of them (although for some unfathomable reason Road CC loves the traffic cops X feed).
Ack, You’d be annoyed having
Ack, You’d be annoyed having to stop for someone on a bike using a pedestrian crossing on that road.
But I wonder if the police attention was higher on them, because the junction where the video starts, they’re passing when the lights clearly red in their direction & green already for the police.
Then when there’s clear evidence of RLJ, it’s easier to justify dishing out the fine approach, rather than just having a word or even ignoring it.
And I mean the oncoming MINI isn’t being an examplar of road safety at a crossing like that is it.
Good! Jump a red, get a
Good! Jump a red, get a ticket. As it should be. If you’re going to jump a red, especially infront of a cop, frankly, you’re an idiot and you deserve it. No excuses.
The law is the law, but fines
The law is the law, but fines are maybe a bit excessive here. 2 seconds after the red there is no inconvenience for the pedestrian-cyclist or anyone else.
Is there similar video
Is there similar video uploads from Surrey Police showing how they stopped speeding / red light jumping / close passing drivers and fined them on the spot? I doubt it. Whenever the police post an article about their speed traps / close pass initiatives, they state x number of drivers were spoken to and given advice about safe driving and x were to be prosecuted for some other random offence they uncovered during the lectures. But see a cyclist ignore a pedestrian red light that changed with very little warning because unlike cars it doesnt detect cyclists approaching before changing to red, then it’s stick the blue flashing light on and fine the bastards…no talking to, no lectures about road safety. I’m surprised they didnt put them behind bars and crush the bikes.
I think they might have. I
I think they might have. I was half asleep when I scrolled through my phone last night and came across the video of the two cyclist at the crossing, posted next to a video of a close passing driver and I think the inference was the latter is worse. The comments though (I should not read the comments 🙁 ) were just as vile, typically pointing out that it was ok for the driver to do the dangerous manouvre as they could be caught due to their licence plate, etc 🙁
I’ve made a comment to this
I’ve made a comment to this effect before on here and been met with outrage and “are you Nigel?” (whatever the **** that means) but I’ll make the observation again anyway:
If you live or work in a city (I worked in central London for a long time) then you will see two types of red-light jumping.
You will see cars accelerate through a light which is turning or has just turned red – presumably with the weird justification that if they’re going fast enough they can argue it wouldn’t have been safe to stop. This has a material chance of causing serious harm and rightly makes people on here angry as people have died being hit by people doing this.
You will also see – maybe low percentage of people on bicycles, but certainly at least one on any meaningful journey through London – cyclists riding up to a light which has been red for some time and going through it like it is a “give way” sign. If turning left, they may not even slow down. This is not the same behaviour, it’s less dangerous than the car example, but it makes people stuck at lights or trying to cross the road (whether they’re paying as much attention as they should be or not) REALLY angry.
It’s rare for cyclists to do the former, because they know there’s a good chance someone will go on the “A” of the “Amber” and hit them from the side. I’m also going to argue that’s it’s rare for car drivers to do the latter. Not that it never happens, but that it’s comparatively rare compared to how often Jonny Ubereats does it.
Probabilistically, as I’ve said before, if I’m going to be killed on the streets of London, it will be a skip lorry or Hackney carriage doing something unexpected. If I’m going to be knocked over without serious consequence beyond maybe a suit needing repair, it’s going to be a delivery rider on an e-Bike doing something stupid.
I’m not condoning anything car drivers do, just trying to add some context to why the whataboutery doesn’t necessarily help – in most drivers’ minds there’s nothing badly wrong with the former, and there is with the latter. i.e. saying “car drivers go through red lights too” just doesn’t resonate because they think there’s a couple of seconds grace built into the timings. As I type that, I wonder whether the prevalence of the behaviour means there is now a buffer built in? Hmm.
Flame away.
Are you Nigel?
Are you Nigel?
In other countries they have
In other countries they have realised that it is silly enforcing irrelevant laws. Most people when on a bicycle realise that it is reasonable to treat a red light as give-way/stop in the same way as nearly everybody treats a red man light as give-way when they are not sitting on a bicycle. There is the Ioha Stop law that implents red lights as stop signs for cyclists and here in France we have give-way signs on traffic-light poles telling cyclists which directions they can treat as give-way if the light is red (often it is just right, but quite often straight-on as well and sometimes all directions).
Or … they just fix it so
Or … they just fix it so cyclists can cycle “past” some red lights in complete safety. Or the lights are “smarter” and rules slightly different so they don’t have to wait as long. Or make it so cyclists encounter far fewer lights in the first place.
Traffic lights are really for motor vehicles (or because motor vehicles). But where they’re really necessary (see above – eventually mostly only for motorists) I’m in favour of the rules being really clear and cut-and-dried e.g. red (and red and yellow, people…) = stop, in all circumstances. (Despite the Dutch doing a bit of “free right turn for cyclists”…)
It’s then up to people (and enforcement) whether they comply but I think there should just be one clear rule.
Any chance you could precis
Any chance you could precis that into a couple of sentences so that I can be bothered to read it?
panda wrote:
It may be built in at some junctions, but my obervations (mainly in Scotland) where lights have been installed on roundabouts, this is certainly not the case. there is virtually no dead spot between one green and theother, amber gamblers are normally very close to a collision.
There’s a built in buffer in
There’s a built in buffer in my head now, as I have learned to expect there to be vehicles still crossing (or even preparing to do so) when the light turns green for me…
If only they did the same for
If only they did the same for drivers…
…because I see a lot more of them going through red lights daily.
Surreyrider wrote:
REALLY? I see loads of cyclists going through red lights everyday.
Fact is a subset of RLJ cyclsits and car drivers will only be caught when the resource strained cops have time or inclination to do this.
This isnt playground tit for tat – grow the fuck up.
Do you cycle? Sitting at the
Sitting at the front of the traffic lights on a bicycle you can often see the lights for the other directions that you would not see in a car. On my 50km daily commute I typically see 10-15 cars rush through lights at high speed just after they have turned red. There are not many bicycles on my route so I will only see 2 or 3 cyclists cautiously go through a red.
neilmck wrote:
That’s how it used to work in Madrid for the cars, see the opposing light on red and off we go.
How many have you seen posted
How many have you seen posted on Social media with cars ? The police don’t handle this well in any way .Wether it’s cars or bikes. This is a not to the cyclist haters by the pigs, it’s a look at us .Happy to be corrected if they advertise it the same with cars ,but I won’t hold my breath
I see a car go through a red
I see a car go through a red light at almost every single cycle at every single junction.
Of course you have to remember that amber means the same as red, ie stop. Sometimes it’s just one, they’ll see the light turn to amber and think it’s too late to stop so carry on, but then often another one will follow them putting their foot down before it hits red, but then another one will follow putting his foot down and getting through it just as it turns red, and then there’s another one who gets through just before the other lights turn green.
If they think they’ll get away with it, they’ll do it.
There’s no need for foul
There’s no need for foul language.
I expected there to be a rush
I expected there to be a rush of comments from drivers holding solidarity with cyclists saying things like: this is another part of the war against cyclists, or it’s just another money making exercise hitting the hard-working cyclist, they never hold drivers to account when they jump or accelerate towards red lights, or yeah but drivers, or they’re probably rushing to…, or I don’t know why we pay imaginary taxes just so…
The plus point of the police
The plus point of the police sharing videos like this is that it puts a lie to the common motorist complaint that because bicycles don’t have number plates, they can’t be held accountable for breaking road laws.
Are you seriously suggesting
Are you seriously suggesting that motorists apply even a modacum of logic or balance to their hatred for cyclists.
mctrials23 wrote:
GPWM
1) Not condoning cyclists
1) Not condoning cyclists jumping red lights but I wonder how many lives (or injuries) this action will help prevent, compared to if authorities clamped down in a meaningfull way on dangerous DRIVERS…
2) As said by others, the cyclists had no identifying markers (registration) but were still caught…
3) If “red means stop”, why do so many police forces take no action when presented with blatant RLJs like these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j31onCSh_5I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQWeGCVWRPo
If “red means stop”, why do
If “red means stop”, why do so many police forces take no action when presented with blatant RLJs like these
Pfff! Lancashire Constabulary cruises the Ignoring RLJs Award. Those are 4 years ago, this is just over 2 months ago, and I have already bored people with many other recent similar RLJs on the A6
https://upride.cc/incident/a15tjv_bmwm4_redlightpass/
This was the situation when BMW M4 A15 TJV decided to speed through the red light, cheered on by the very understanding Lancashire police
I reported a car going
I reported a car going through a red light not long ago and the Met appear to have acted upon it.
However, reading all the excuses they make for not acting I think I can be forgiven for thinking that they haven’t acted even though they’ve provided me with reference number. They also don’t even seem to be able to use the tab key, either that or they have a nervous twitch whenever they press the space bar. The line about posting on social media is dumb because they don’t tell you when the case is concluded. They state that they won’t actually tell you anything. There’s no accountability. The line about the conduct of victims and Met police values is particularly ridiculous.
“Cases will not be accepted where footage has been lifted directly from social media
– We request that footage is not put on social media until your case is concluded
– Only footage in its original format will be accepted. We will not accept footage edited in any way and this includes captions, slow motion and 360 footage not in its original format
– All footage will be shared with the offending driver/rider in its original format so please do not submit footage containing anything you are not willing to be shared. This includes things such as your home/work address, facial images of yourself/family or your vehicle registration mark (VRM) We do not have the facility to edit these things from your footage
– Unless there are extenuating circumstances please only submit a maximum of 2 pieces of footage no longer than 3 minutes in length to support your statement. We do not require supporting photographs as these will not be considered when making a case disposal decision
– For all allegations of moving traffic offences we require real-time footage which captures the offence in question. Still images alone will not be accepted
– We will not seek or request footage from 3rd parties on your behalf. Disposal decisions will purely be based on the evidence submitted
– If the VRM of the offending vehicle is not clearly visible in the original footage cases will not be proceeded with
– Only one vehicle will be accepted per report submission
– If the date/time stamp on the footage is incorrect and does not reflect the date/time of the incident reported, the case will not be proceeded with
– All supporting statements must be completed in full and contain full personal details and the VRM of the offending vehicle
– Due to the decriminalisation of a large number of traffic offences we are unable to deal with any parking allegations except those relating to white zigzag lines. We are also unable to deal with any offences relating to driving/riding in bus/cycle lanes and the majority of offences relating to contravention of road traffic signs. This includes, but is not limited to, “keep left”, “no motor vehicle”, “one-way street” and “no left/right turn” signs
– We are unable to deal with allegations relating to vehicle document offences such as driving without a licence, insurance or tax
– Do not seek to actively confront, reprimand or engage with drivers/riders in any way. If your conduct is deemed to be aggressive, unacceptable or does not conform to the Met Police values, cases will not be proceeded with
– Our decision in these cases is final and we will not engage in further communication”
You can find out whether they
You can find out whether they’re lying about ‘taking action’ by asking them what they actually did. When they refuse to tell you, citing various GDPR excuses and claiming it’s illegal to tell you (it obviously isn’t because Northamptonshire police WILL tell you) then you know they either did nothing at all or sent out the worse-than-useless advice letter. When, as Lancashire has done, they’re prepared to go to all the trouble and expense of following through the long FoI procedure, refusing at every step, you REALLY know they did nothing at all and are trying to cover it up