We have detected that your browser is using AdBlock
Police Community is a not for profit organisation and advertising revenue is key to our continued viability.
Please disable your AdBlocker on our site in order to continue using it.
This message will disappear once AdBlock has been disabled.
Thank you for your support - we appreciate it !
If you feel you are getting this message in error please email firstname.lastname@example.org
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'law'.
Found 3 results
These quite common road features are not covered/ mentioned in the Highway Code, which is a poor show as I often see drivers not obeying full box rules suggesting the subject isn’t dealt with well. My question is can you lawfully stop inside a half yellow box to turn right but prevented from doing so by on coming traffic (in this case from your left and the road is clear to the right)? The case have in mind is a T junction with the box at the end of the minor road stretching out half way into the major road. It is aimed at improving flow without traffic lights so that main road traffic doesn’t block access to and from the minor road when Busy…ie traffic should not enter unless the exit is clear. As far as I can find, The traffic signs gen directions 2002, now 2016, Section 7.2 (2002) treat half yellow boxes and full yellow boxes the same by virtue of diagrams 1043/44 (now amalgamated as 1043 in 2016 regs!) So, if joining the main road from the minor, can I sit in the box, if, the exit road (to my right is clear), but I am prevented by approaching traffic from the left, thus causing me to block main road traffic from my right. Technically, I think I should be allowed to do so, but practically it might be risky to sit in the box as drivers from the right on the main road may not give you right of way. Comments welcome
Any advice on a specific area of law is from either currently-serving UK police officers, and is offered to the best of their ability, or from members of the public who are perhaps aspiring to be serving police officers and may not hold the necessary level of knowledge to provide such assistance or by any other member who may offer their opinion. Either way such advice can only be treated as an opinion and nothing more. The information is based on their own individual experiences, expertise and training. It is stressed, however, that if any information or advice found in these forums is used by any person or organisation, then the respective police officer(s) and staff can not and will not take any responsibility for any outcome in any investigation in a criminal or civil enquiry. Any advice or opinion offered is to the best of the individuals knowledge and ability based on the information you have supplied, and we will stress that we will never be knowingly misleading or untruthful in content. Please note, we do not offer advice or assistance in order to avoid penalties that you have incurred or maybe pending. Such requests are deemed to be of an Operational nature and against our main Forum Rules. You should always seek Legal Advice from a Qualified Solicitor in the event of any impending prosecutions or other involved legal matter.
We are governed by consent in the UK. By default, we are also policed by consent. This is an important point to remember, as it acts a safety net to prevent the same abuses of power that has led to totalitarian states in the past. The government cannot pass a rule then demand that every single person obey. That is the creed of dictators and tyrants. Statutes, acts, codes, and policies are not Laws, but they do operate under the colour of Law. That is to say that they only have the force of Law with the consent of the governed. They become legally binding only after consent has been given. If this were not true the government could pass any rule they like and demand that we the public obey. We would be living under a dictatorship if this were the case. This is where the police, unknowingly in most cases, manufacture the consent of the public. As statutes etc. have no force of Law without consent, it is the job of the police to gain the agreement necessary to make the statute legally binding. Essentially, you are establishing a contractual agreement. Now here is where the unlawful nature of entire political/judicial/policing system lies, and where the police, all the way up to the highest levels are complicit in fraud. Any contractual agreement made through coercive or deceptive means, or where full disclosure is not given is fraudulent. The man or woman the police coerce into consenting was never made aware that they were getting into a contract, and were coerced into verbally agreeing and signing paperwork through deception. This is important for you to know, as you are liable, under common law, to full commercial liability for your actions. Your uniform will not protect you if you have caused someone harm due to any unlawful behaviour of your own. Knowingly or not. If there is no injured party or no intent to cause harm, there is no crime. Offence may mean to you as police, an infraction of a rule. But that does not necessarily mean that it is a crime, or that you have any jurisdiction in the matter. So the government made up a rule and deemed anyone in violation of that rule to have broken the Law? Not so. There is no such thing as "The Law" There are rules of a society which are only applicable to consenting members of that society. In most cases the society in question is The Law Society, which has its own language: Legalese. Are you a consenting member of it and are you even aware that you are using legalese terminology to dupe the public? To be clear, I have no problem with the police when you guys are genuinely keeping the peace and brining real criminals to justice. It is the systemic deception and corruption inherent within the system that I am trying to bring to your attention.