Bradford teens told to stay out of car park
4:00pm Sunday 14th October 2012 in News
Bradford on Avon Police are cracking down on anti-social behaviour in and around the underground car park at the Kingston Mills housing development.
Teenagers who don’t live there have been using the car park in cars and on scooters, causing a disruption.
PCSO Joe Leeds said: “We are going to be stepping up patrols, we will also be putting up signs in the car park and more importantly any persons with vehicles in that car park acting anti-socially will be issued with a section 59 order which could result in their vehicle being seized.”
Police Sergeant Chris Hams said: “We would like to remind people that this is a residential area not a playground. If you have no business there stay away.”
Witnesses to anti-social behaviour can call Wiltshire Police on 101.
Comments(17)
Marrytime
says...
1:06am Mon 15 Oct 12
and what were sections 1-58?
bureaucratic jargo
DaveHegarty
says...
2:48am Mon 15 Oct 12
Marrytime wrote:Ok so I've googled that for you.... that would be the Police Reform Act 2002.
ok what is section 59?
and what were sections 1-58?
bureaucratic jargo
Looks like quite a nice bit of law this section 59 lark.
Marrytime
says...
9:21am Mon 15 Oct 12
.
Ah that's clearer.
anthrax
says...
1:22am Tue 16 Oct 12
Marrytime wrote:We only need a single law. We could call it lawall. It will apply to everything from revving car engines in car parks to murdering orphans with shovels.
ok what is section 59?
and what were sections 1-58?
bureaucratic jargo
The stupidity is strong in this one.
notscot
says...
12:28pm Tue 16 Oct 12
Mrs Donnyfly wrote:He said that issuing the S. 59 warning COULD result in vehicle seizure. He's right - you're vehicle won't be seized under S. 59 conditions PRIOR to the issue of a S.59 Warning, will it?
Really PCSO Joe Leeds, you know very well that the issuing of a section 59 order won't result in anyone's car being seized. That would only happen if anyone repeated the "offence".
Marrytime
says...
3:54pm Tue 16 Oct 12
My point was about the name.
If one is being charged with revving car engines, then why not call it that. Most charges are described in descriptive english and do not hve to be understood by their id or section number.
Too much jargon about.
Calm down its only comment.
anthrax
says...
4:19pm Tue 16 Oct 12
Marrytime wrote:No they aren't. Most are 'Section XX' offences. Section 18: GBH with intent, Section 20: GBH. The simpleton names are for the simpleton laymen like yourself.
Stupidity indeed anthrax.
My point was about the name.
If one is being charged with revving car engines, then why not call it that. Most charges are described in descriptive english and do not hve to be understood by their id or section number.
Too much jargon about.
Calm down its only comment.
williethepimp
says...
1:43am Fri 19 Oct 12
anthrax wrote:"The simpleton names are for the simpleton laymen like yourself."
Marrytime wrote:No they aren't. Most are 'Section XX' offences. Section 18: GBH with intent, Section 20: GBH. The simpleton names are for the simpleton laymen like yourself.
Stupidity indeed anthrax.
My point was about the name.
If one is being charged with revving car engines, then why not call it that. Most charges are described in descriptive english and do not hve to be understood by their id or section number.
Too much jargon about.
Calm down its only comment.
Unlike anthrax who is obviously a legal genius.
Marrytime
says...
12:46pm Fri 19 Oct 12
I had him down as probably someone who enjoys making personal jibes about strangers and unable to conduct a remote correspondence in a polite manner.
smokingbeagle
says...
1:41pm Fri 19 Oct 12
williethepimp wrote:The problem is, willie and Andrew Murrison, that Anthrax is actually correct.
anthrax wrote:"The simpleton names are for the simpleton laymen like yourself."
Marrytime wrote:No they aren't. Most are 'Section XX' offences. Section 18: GBH with intent, Section 20: GBH. The simpleton names are for the simpleton laymen like yourself.
Stupidity indeed anthrax.
My point was about the name.
If one is being charged with revving car engines, then why not call it that. Most charges are described in descriptive english and do not hve to be understood by their id or section number.
Too much jargon about.
Calm down its only comment.
Unlike anthrax who is obviously a legal genius.
Marrytime
says...
2:45pm Fri 19 Oct 12
smokingbeagle
says...
3:39pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Mrs Donnyfly
says...
8:05pm Fri 19 Oct 12
smokingbeagle wrote:What exactly is it you're smoking?
Your lack of votes.
Mrs Donnyfly
says...
8:12pm Fri 19 Oct 12
williethepimp wrote:Most charges may well have a 'Section' number, but in the world I live in when the subject of criminal offences arises these Section numbers are usually dropped in favour of such descriptions as GBH or burglary or murder etc. etc.
anthrax wrote:"The simpleton names are for the simpleton laymen like yourself."
Marrytime wrote:No they aren't. Most are 'Section XX' offences. Section 18: GBH with intent, Section 20: GBH. The simpleton names are for the simpleton laymen like yourself.
Stupidity indeed anthrax.
My point was about the name.
If one is being charged with revving car engines, then why not call it that. Most charges are described in descriptive english and do not hve to be understood by their id or section number.
Too much jargon about.
Calm down its only comment.
Unlike anthrax who is obviously a legal genius.
DaveHegarty
says...
9:49am Mon 22 Oct 12
When I come to power I will be repealing all law in its current form though and re-introducing The Act. It'll judge crimes based on severity; for example: grown adults sinking to the level of childish bickering on a website will score 1/100 and the offending party will receive some sort of nondescript and frankly rubbish (maybe slightly humiliating punishment).
At the other end of the scale, Murder will score 100/100 and the person goes away forever.
Mrs Donnyfly
says...
9:37pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Mrs Donnyfly says...
11:58pm Sun 14 Oct 12