Bradford teens told to stay out of car park

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)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:58pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Mrs Donnyfly says...

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".
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". Mrs Donnyfly

1:06am Mon 15 Oct 12

Marrytime says...

ok what is section 59?
and what were sections 1-58?

bureaucratic jargo
ok what is section 59? and what were sections 1-58? bureaucratic jargo Marrytime

2:48am Mon 15 Oct 12

DaveHegarty says...

Marrytime wrote:
ok what is section 59?
and what were sections 1-58?

bureaucratic jargo
Ok so I've googled that for you.... that would be the Police Reform Act 2002.

Looks like quite a nice bit of law this section 59 lark.
[quote][p][bold]Marrytime[/bold] wrote: ok what is section 59? and what were sections 1-58? bureaucratic jargo[/p][/quote]Ok so I've googled that for you.... that would be the Police Reform Act 2002. Looks like quite a nice bit of law this section 59 lark. DaveHegarty

9:21am Mon 15 Oct 12

Marrytime says...

the Police Reform Act 2002..
.
Ah that's clearer.
the Police Reform Act 2002.. . Ah that's clearer. Marrytime

1:22am Tue 16 Oct 12

anthrax says...

Marrytime wrote:
ok what is section 59?
and what were sections 1-58?

bureaucratic jargo
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.

The stupidity is strong in this one.
[quote][p][bold]Marrytime[/bold] wrote: ok what is section 59? and what were sections 1-58? bureaucratic jargo[/p][/quote]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. The stupidity is strong in this one. anthrax

12:28pm Tue 16 Oct 12

notscot says...

Mrs Donnyfly wrote:
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".
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?
[quote][p][bold]Mrs Donnyfly[/bold] wrote: 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".[/p][/quote]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? notscot

3:54pm Tue 16 Oct 12

Marrytime says...

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.
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. Marrytime

4:19pm Tue 16 Oct 12

anthrax says...

Marrytime wrote:
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.
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.
[quote][p][bold]Marrytime[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]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. anthrax

1:43am Fri 19 Oct 12

williethepimp says...

anthrax wrote:
Marrytime wrote:
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.
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.
"The simpleton names are for the simpleton laymen like yourself."

Unlike anthrax who is obviously a legal genius.
[quote][p][bold]anthrax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marrytime[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]"The simpleton names are for the simpleton laymen like yourself." Unlike anthrax who is obviously a legal genius. williethepimp

12:46pm Fri 19 Oct 12

Marrytime says...

willie the pimp reckons anthrax is a legal genius.

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.
willie the pimp reckons anthrax is a legal genius. 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. Marrytime

1:41pm Fri 19 Oct 12

smokingbeagle says...

williethepimp wrote:
anthrax wrote:
Marrytime wrote:
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.
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.
"The simpleton names are for the simpleton laymen like yourself."

Unlike anthrax who is obviously a legal genius.
The problem is, willie and Andrew Murrison, that Anthrax is actually correct.
[quote][p][bold]williethepimp[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anthrax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marrytime[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]"The simpleton names are for the simpleton laymen like yourself." Unlike anthrax who is obviously a legal genius.[/p][/quote]The problem is, willie and Andrew Murrison, that Anthrax is actually correct. smokingbeagle

2:45pm Fri 19 Oct 12

Marrytime says...

what problem?
what problem? Marrytime

3:39pm Fri 19 Oct 12

smokingbeagle says...

Your lack of votes.
Your lack of votes. smokingbeagle

8:05pm Fri 19 Oct 12

Mrs Donnyfly says...

smokingbeagle wrote:
Your lack of votes.
What exactly is it you're smoking?
[quote][p][bold]smokingbeagle[/bold] wrote: Your lack of votes.[/p][/quote]What exactly is it you're smoking? Mrs Donnyfly

8:12pm Fri 19 Oct 12

Mrs Donnyfly says...

williethepimp wrote:
anthrax wrote:
Marrytime wrote:
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.
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.
"The simpleton names are for the simpleton laymen like yourself."

Unlike anthrax who is obviously a legal genius.
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.
[quote][p][bold]williethepimp[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anthrax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marrytime[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]"The simpleton names are for the simpleton laymen like yourself." Unlike anthrax who is obviously a legal genius.[/p][/quote]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. Mrs Donnyfly

9:49am Mon 22 Oct 12

DaveHegarty says...

The sections and names of pieces of law are not mutually exclusive... they can have both. In fact, think of the Acts and Sections as a way of indexing the offences.

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.
The sections and names of pieces of law are not mutually exclusive... they can have both. In fact, think of the Acts and Sections as a way of indexing the offences. 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. DaveHegarty

9:37pm Mon 22 Oct 12

Mrs Donnyfly says...

An Act is an abstract, how can IT judge anything?
An Act is an abstract, how can IT judge anything? Mrs Donnyfly

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree