GC8

Independant Police Complaints Commission

EVOLUTION

av complained already, its in the hands of the solicitor, who at the min is getting nowhere

Paul3446

I'm 37. (and never been in trouble with the Police) (sorry, filthy pig scum)

If the harrassment is this bad have you thought about contacting your MP, or even better the tabloids. They love stories like this!

EVOLUTION

anyone with half a brain wouldnt go to press until they have got the outcome they require.


that route would only jepordise the whole case, but then being the really clever person you are, you would have known that wouldnt you

Paul3446

There's that aggressive streak again!

Well I'll keep checking The Sun for your story after you've been cleared of all charges.

ZYRUSS

aggressive would be him smashing your face in mate lol, not posting on here.....


no aggression in that last post as far as i can see lol



you read the sun, i had you down as an Independant or Times man myself lol

Paul3446

I don't read the Sun, I said I'd keep checking it for the story!

Let's face it, if this story is true, it's outrageous and would be tabloid headlines. The only reason not to go public would be if he has skeletons in his closet.

We'll wait and see.

I read the Daily Mail by the way.

EVOLUTION

have you ever heard the term, inocent until proven guilty......



well the same applies to them, in a court, they are meant to be given a fair hearing, and going to a paper as you say is not a fair trial. complaints commission are not goin to look down to well on that.


now that really is all i have to say to you, for a 37 yr old, i thought you may have been able to hold your own in this , erm, debate shall we say. your clearly mentaly challenged mate lol You suggested it was me that needed help near the beginning of your drivvel in this thread, we,, can i make a suggestion that you follow your own advice lol

Tripple'O G

Well my car is limo'd on the rear windows and tinted on the front but I was told "legal" on the front.....haven't heard a dicky out of "bill".....plus i'd tell them to **** off as unless they have a meter and/or arn't traffic police.....

not being a tough guy, just saying the way it is....

aqua

possibly a little late in the day but the following extract from the Pentagon website http://www.pentagonglasstech.com/news_legal_update.asp details the requirements:

Extract below
------------------

Window Tinting - Amendments to Legislation

During the early part of 2004, Section 32 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations will be amended to include “Window Tint Films”, where such materials attached to the glass are capable of reducing the Visible Light Transmission of forward windows to below prescribed levels. These changes will be back-dated to become applicable from 1st January 2004.

This will effectively ban virtually all tinted films fitted to windows forward of the B-Post on any vehicle that is to be driven on UK roads.

The reason for these changes is the recent proliferation of vehicles that are excessively tinted. Some vehicles may be so heavily tinted that they present a real danger when used on public roads. The action being taken by the Government follows a fatality that occurred recently where a heavily tinted car was involved in a collision with a motorcycle and the window tints were held to blame due to the vision of the driver being impaired.

There is however, a recognised difference between “light window tints” which may be considered safe for road use (such as those supplied to you by Pentagon) and “excessively dark window tints” which are not.

There has also been a great deal of debate in recent years about the legitimacy of window tints that do not obscure the vision of the driver. A clear case has been argued that road-safe window tints do not actually conflict with existing regulations. The Department for Transport have argued however that Section 32 was always intended to cover materials attached to the glass, despite the fact that no mention of this is made in the Regulation itself.

The only solution remaining would be to amend the Legislation.

Consequently and in order to clarify the situation, the Government have finally decided to up-date the Regulations to specifically include Tinted Films since, in the view of the Police and the Department for Transport, this is the only way in which the problems of excessive tints can be remedied.

Unfortunately however, even tint films that may be considered to be safe for road use will now be viewed as in conflict with the Regulations, enabling the Police and Vehicle Inspectorate to take action against vehicle owners.

This has significant implications for the owners of vehicles that have window tints already fitted and also those that are responsible for installing or selling window tints.

Implications for the vehicle owner

After much discussion, a sympathetic Enforcement Policy has been agreed between the Department for Transport and The Glass and Glazing Federation to ensure that all vehicle owners that have had tints applied in the past may be dealt with fairly. This applies in particular where the infringement is with respect to tints that do not pose a significant threat to Road Safety, despite being in contravention with the amended Regulations.

In any event, after the date of the amendment to Section 32, the owner of a vehicle that has window tints applied forward of the B-Post could be challenged by either a Police Officer or by an Inspector from the Department for Transport’s Vehicle Inspectorate, where their vehicle is noticed being driven on Public Roads.

Where such a vehicle is stopped and the window tints applied are such that the Visible Light Transmission level, when measured using an approved device falls to below prescribed levels, the following enforcement guidelines have been agreed with, and recommended, by the Government.

Above 30% Visible Light Transmission (Less Severe Window Tints)

The owner or driver of such a vehicle would be required to have the tinted film removed from the windows under the direction of either a Rectification Notice or a Delayed Prohibition Notice. A period of grace will apply for a limited number of days (normally ten) during which time the vehicle may be driven whilst the rectification work is to be completed.

In either case, the vehicle will need to be inspected by either a Police Officer or Vehicle Inspectorate Officer to confirm that the glass has been restored to a compliant condition. Prosecution is unlikely in such circumstances provided the vehicle owner complies fully.

Action that needs to be taken

All Businesses that have supplied window tints forward of the B-Post are being encouraged by the Government and the Glass and Glazing Federation to contact all of their previous customers to inform them of the changes to Legislation and to offer them a chance to have their vehicle rectified by having the front tints removed.

MaDaSS

Can i guess at 'case dismissed' or was it just a mistrial?
Am gob smacked at what has gone off with you. No wonder you have such strong views and from what we can read, well founded too. Unreal.
The one thing that bugs me, is there really no way via your lawyers and the press maybe to stop the harrassment? Surely there has to be a limit somewhere along the line? wow.

EVOLUTION

yes, it was a case dismissed, ie, no case to answer, take this farce out of my court room.


i have got a damages claim goin in over this particular case, as when i was stopped, the pold who ripped me out of my car, opened the door so hard, it snapped the checkstrap on the door, which did 3 things

snapped the strap and bent the door and mounts
dammaged the door skin its self,
opened so far it bent and forsed the drivers wing forward 8mm


this still needs to bve settled before further ction can be taken.

Paul3446

So someone who thinks that EVERY" single policeman in the country is beneath contempt and complete scum of the earth because of the actions of a handful of officers, thinks I'm deranged.

Oh well, each to their own.

Sorry I couldn't hold my own in this debate, I'm gutted, presumably you can back up your generalisation with proof that every Policeman in the country is the same as the ones you've encountered? Or will you just keep spouting off about your own experiences?

EVOLUTION

i dont need to prove anything lol


if i treat them all as cheats, and never trust one, i wont ever be let down by them


deranged was maybe a little too harsh, your just plain stupid lol

GC8

Paul; youre still being a **** arent you?

Paul3446

Yes, your grasp of grammar and spelling suggests that I'm the stupid one.

Paul3446

Yes, whereas you GC8 are still being imaginative with your posts!

GC8

Let it go for fuck's sake man!

EVOLUTION

im the youngster lol, im allowed to make mistakes you prize idiot

Paul3446

Hey, you could go to anger management with EVOLUTION!

Paul3446

Age is no excuse for stupidity.

EVOLUTION

anyway, window tints.......


they need to let 70% of light through on the front, thats the law, i think we have established that one now lol

Paul3446

I think it's 71% actually!

Seriously though, best of luck with your case, time to go home now. I'll be watching out for the plod on the way!

vindaloo

The way this thread is going I wondered for a minute if you were describing the car, the cops, Evo, Paul or someone else.


PS: I figured out it was the car.

EVOLUTION

Bye Bye Paul

vindaloo

Having read the Pentagon tints stuff above... It reads that ANY tinted films applied in front of the B pillar will be subject to removal, due to Dept Transport policy and the sh*tily worded legislation introduced in 2004.

However, they descriminate between <30% (safe) and >30% (unsafe) tints in the way they enforce it... i.e. Rectification notice versus impounding or immediate rectification.

J.

DCI Gene Hunt

There goes your excuse then...........