Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
You can’t possible accurately
You can’t possible accurately align the derailleur hanger without a derailleur alignment tool
An alternative is to go down-market to the less finicky 9-speed Sora. Beautiful shifting- mech got a bash on the Pennine Bridleway and I bent it back by eye. When the cables are good, it’s excellent and seems rather better than the Ultegra 9-speed (although that’s 22 years old now)
I’d never even heard of that
I’d never even heard of that Python sketch before
You have to be old enough.
The driver of the Maserati
The driver of the Maserati failed to see the marked #RPU car in the rear view as it was followed at 125mph
Should have come to Lancashire! I have a photo of a Maserati with no MOT somewhere in the 2022 lists, but I can’t find it without a lot of effort- a weakness in the filing system. It’s set up for finding other appearances of the reg. and not for the vehicle type. Sometimes, I can remember them by key facts: this one with the non-existent plate is run by Hooray Henry outfit The Cannon Run
Wow, he must have really
Wow, he must have really annoyed someone to get a four year ban
Officers from Devon and Cornwall Police’s No Excuse team
He shoud have gone to Lancashire Constabulary’s Every Excuse team!
I have no intention of
I have no intention of voluntarily reading anything in the hyper-junk press flagship, and this resolve was reinforced by the re-employment of the loathsome, lying, barred crook Johnson.
I hope the (unt was still
I hope the (unt was still grinning when his employer called him in to discuss the letter from the police
I expect he was, because there never was a letter from the police
Ultegra Pasta Cranks- a true
Ultegra Pasta Cranks- a true saga of our times
We forgot to say that the
We forgot to say that the owner of the coach also had a red Ferrari. Unfortunately, it had not been taxed since December 2022 and was also seized
He should have moved to Lancashire! The Crims choice Audi A4, no MOT, insurance or VED for 3 1/2 years, reported several times (first occasion 1.7.22) and often filmed around Garstang, and this is it parked 20 yards from Garstang Police Station- a favourite police rest stop where hordes of TacOps ANPR/ video equipped police cars often hang out together avoiding work
This case against LancsFilth
This case against LancsFilth is EA/2023/0271, which is listed here, although it’s just a pending case with no hearing date set. Strictly speaking, of course, the case is an appeal against the Information Commissioner’s Decision to support the police in not telling cyclists what the police (didn’t do!) did about offences against them. There’s now a letter from the Information Tribunal asking the Chief Constable whether he wishes LC to ‘join the appeal’, and it’s likely he would rather see LC conduct a Sheffield NW-style Close Pass Operation- which LC has never done, and has no intention of doing, ever!
The CC would like the Commissioner to do his defending for him, which suits me as I will make strenuous efforts to be allowed to introduce evidence that LC routinely ignores all evidence from cyclists and does nothing at all even when it claims to be taking action. Then, if all goes according to plan, the IC will say ‘but LC is not here to defend these actions!’ and I will say that the Chief Constable should therefore be forced to join the appeal- that’s my present aim. They’re talking about a video hearing between 30th October and 27th November- it seems unlikely that these hearings are ‘broadcast’ to outsiders, but we’ll see. LC is continuing its evil ways, and didn’t respond to this at all- it’s almost 3 weeks since the incident. Blackburn Council claimed to be ‘investigating’ but looks like it’s also trying to forget about it and has said nothing about it since claiming that the taxi driver was licensed at the time even though he’s still not included on the Blackburn taxi driver registration list(link is external). This is looking rather suspicious!
My guess is that the
My guess is that the Commissioner will argue that police forces can hand out information if they choose to, but can equally claim exemption from disclosure if they don’t choose to. This power to ignore things or enforce them at will is a way for the police to deploy patronage and let people off who pay the unofficial private fine, and to stuff people they don’t like: such as those who annoy them by reporting offences with immaculate evidence.
I will read up about it when the Commissioner’s reply arrives (there’s a huge backlog of appeals to the Information Tribunal because the IC has learned from the police that you can get away with not doing things the law dictates by simply saying you’re busy. So the IC applied to the IT for all appeals to be paused because they didn’t have time to respond by the IT deadline.
are you not worried about
are you not worried about some form of petty retaliation from the [Lancashire] police?
I have considered this for about 4 years, since I was hit by a vehicle coming down the wrong side of the Sainsbury’s access road and became alarmed at the police willingness to find any excuse for driving offences: in that case it was ‘only a momentary loss of concentration’. I bought the headcam and it has been downhill since then- they have, at least, supplied me with plenty of ammo. I know they would really stuff me for any driving offence which they would generally ignore.
There’s no sign that LC are
There’s no sign that LC are perturbed by my baiting as yet- the policy of ignoring pretty much every moving traffic offence persists. They don’t seem to be worried about any form of regulation. PJ07 NFP is often seen around Garstang, and is here 20 yards from the police station- almost a year since I first reported it. He’s going for 3 1/2 years without insurance, MOT or VED and is clearly not worried that LC will suddenly wake up.
This is copied over from
This is copied over from another topic, for reference
As an aside, I have just used information from CyclingMikey’s YouTube channel (including a page dated only yesterday) in my appeal of the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice which not only allows, but mandates, police forces to refuse to tell you what they did about the offences you report to them. The Information Commissioner states that it is an offence against GDPR/ FOIA for the police to even tell you that they hold information about what they did. This is quite important because it could be used by all forces as a precedent. So, the appeal is now at the Information Tribunal, with numerous files of evidence: I have several emails from Lancashire Constabulary in which they tell me what happened (generally nothing because ‘case not processed in time’) to the driver of vehicles identified only by the registration number. I even have an email from LC telling me that I must make an FoI request if I wish to know what happened over a particular offence! I generally don’t have close up video of the driver himself, for obvious reasons if they’re close-passing me to within an inch of my life, or crashing through a red light at 50 mph.
However, CM often does show close up video of the phone offending driver stationary in a queue, and also plasters the vehicle registration all over the page. Yet the Met. frequently tells CM (unless CM is lying, which seems highly improbable) what happened to this very identifiable driver- driving course, warning letter, points, court etc. (obviously, nothing or warning letter are the only options ever considered by LC!). According to the Information Commissioner, the Met. is committing an offence, so I’m looking forward to the Commissioner prosecuting the Met! I have asked for a court hearing at the Information Tribunal, rather than a decision based on reading the papers alone, because it’s a potentially important decision.
Have you tried pulling across
Have you tried pulling across 3 lanes of oncoming traffic ??!!
Logic tells me she joined the wrong carriageway by going down the ‘off ramp’, so with some quick thinking (!) she should have been able to quickly get onto the hard shoulder crossing at most one lane of oncoming ‘off’ traffic
So this is the Decision
So this is the Decision Notice from the Information Commissioner which supports police forces refusing to tell you what action they took after they claimed to you that they had taken action over a traffic offence report. It’s worth reading, because they’ll all be using such dodges if it’s supported at the Information Tribunal. If it is, when the Met. or another force tells people that the offender received a warning letter, or a course etc. they have committed an offence
