“Amazing to see the BBC getting this wrong”: Camera cyclist “disappointed” after BBC calls him “vigilante” in now-corrected mistake; Uber’s cycling pub with £5.50 Happy Hour pints; Pogačar’s rainbow jersey; WTF electrical box bike? + more on the live blog

Please do explain what enforcement is carried out
Fines, arrest, driving ban, points, beaten up, car crushed?

Another moronic troll.

Do shut up you cretin, Van Erp and others present evidence to the police with the intention (and often success) of procuring prosecution. That's vigilantism.
If you can't react to someone else's point of view without spitting out your dummy, perhaps try another nursery.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

Do shut up you cretin, Van Erp and others present evidence to the police with the intention (and often success) of procuring prosecution. That's vigilantism.

It literally isn't, by the dictionary definition of "vigilantism", because they're handing evidence to the authorities and the authorities are carrying out the enforcement. For it to be vigilantism, they'd have to be deciding guilt, apprehending suspects, and dealing out punishment by themselves, all without the knowledge/authority of the police/courts. Someone making correct use of official, existing legal system is - by definition - not a vigilante, because a vigilante -  by definition - operates outside/against the legal system. 
 

As above - your (totally incorrect) definition of vigilantism would include anyone dialling 999 to report a crime. 

Vo2Maxi wrote:

Do shut up you cretin, Van Erp and others present evidence to the police with the intention (and often success) of procuring prosecution. That's vigilantism. If you can't react to someone else's point of view without spitting out your dummy, perhaps try another nursery.

Vigilantism is seeking out malefactors and meting out punishment on them oneself without recourse to the law. Reporting malefactors to the authorities for legal prosecution is not. It really is that simple.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

If you can't react to someone else's point of view without spitting out your dummy, perhaps try another nursery.

You should take your own advice, since you're plain wrong.

I would advise that you don't use words if you don't know their meaning. It makes you look very stupid.

"present evidence to the police"

Just as anyone would do who witnessed an assault or robbery or burglary.

You completed failed to demonstrate how your definition of vigilantism applies to them - you simply assert that reporting to a police portal is vigilantism.

You are either trolling in general and trolling most people on here who do make reports or you are very stupid.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

Do shut up you cretin, Van Erp and others present evidence to the police with the intention (and often success) of procuring prosecution. That's vigilantism. If you can't react to someone else's point of view without spitting out your dummy, perhaps try another nursery.

Do you have to put in a lot of practise to be this stupid or does it come naturally?

The quote you included literally disproves your own point.

Vo2Maxi wrote:

"Vigilante": a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are. thought to be inadequate...

...Van Erp and others like him, are literally vigilantes.

Except theyre not, because they're not "undertaking law enforcement". "Law Enforcement" is defined as:

Quote:

The activity of making certain that the laws of an area are obeyed

or

Quote:

The prevention, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties

Van Erp et al. aren't doing any of these things - they record evidence of crimes, pass them to the authorities, and they carry out the law enforcement. Van Erp et al, are literally witnesses, not vigilantes. If they are vigilantes, then so is anyone who dials 999.

Well you're either trolling or spectacularly thick. CM and other camera cyclists (self included) do not enforce any laws, they report lawbreakers to the appropriate authorities for enforcement. By your definition if someone is burgling your house and a concerned citizen calls the police, they are a vigilante. Actually perhaps you're trolling and spectacularly thick, your comment would seem to indicate that.

Tranter wrote: "A vigilante is someone who attempts to apprehend and punish someone who has committed a crime, without the involvement of law enforcement." This is something Van Erp does that other camera cyclists don't do; he verbally and/or physically confronts drivers and blocks some drivers from driving on, which is a form of apprehension and punishment; he also turns up at court when police prosecute the drivers he reports, to further involve himself in the legal process. Additionally, what he does would be construed as road rage in my non-UK jurisdiction, which is a criminal offence.

Let's see now, how many things have you got wrong: verbally confronting someone is neither apprehension or punishment; he blocks people from breaking road laws, again he doesn't apprehend or punish them, once they stop attempting to break the law he does not detain them; in virtually every case that goes to court where a witness has submitted camera footage they will be asked to appear in court to verify what happened, he's not turning up at court for the hell of it, he's asked to appear; what constitutes road rage under Australian law has no relevance to the UK and in any case nothing CM does would fall into that category.

So an excellent effort, every single thing you said is wrong.

He turns up as a witness as required isn't the gotcha you imagine.

Thank goodness we don't have australia's laws here.

edit: I should have made the important point that a few drivers opt for court in the hope that the witness will not turn up and the case will be dropped. Hence mikey making sure he does attend court.

Hirsute wrote:

Thank goodness we don't have australia's laws here.

I very much doubt what he says about Australian law is true in any way; I've looked online and there isn't a word I can find in either national or state law that would make CM's actions be classified as road rage. Considering he claims to have been a UK police officer and yet time and again shows that he doesn't know UK law, I think we can take his statements on Australian law with a very large pinch of salt.

That's some catch, that catch-22!

So, commit enough different crimes at the same time and it becomes too much effort for the police to do anything about it? Need to remember that one...

I had this situation come up here
https://youtu.be/eLZItGi5xuA

Got close passed by a driver, submitted my report with video.
The Met police chose to issue an NIP to identify the driver to either issue a warning or prosecute.
Turned out the plates were cloned so the police said they couldn't identify the driver.
So they had 2 issues worth pursuing:
1) the dangerous close pass
and
2) the illegal cloned plates...
but chose to give up and do nothing.

Who's cloning plates on a minibus?! Makes me wonder - were the plates actually cloned, or did the driver just say "wasn't me - plates must have been cloned" and the police went along with it? 

Sorry, to clarify, the driver of the minibus got an awareness course.
It was the driver of the car behind the minibus that was using cloned plates.

OnYerBike wrote:

Who's cloning plates on a minibus?! 

I know mitsky has clarified it wasn't the minibus that was cloned - but people don't always clone plates to use on the same type of vehicle. Mine were cloned once. Thankfully they were used on a car of the same brand, but very clearly a different model and colour, meaning it was straightforward to refute the penalty charge notice I received.    

My dad's plates where cloned.
Same make, type and colour car.
Dad got several tickets, police showed up cause he had not payed for fuel, speeding tickets etc.
He had to prove where he was at times the crimes where commited..

Keesvant wrote:

My dad's plates where cloned. Same make, type and colour car. Dad got several tickets, police showed up cause he had not payed for fuel, speeding tickets etc. He had to prove where he was at times the crimes where commited..

When that happens, is it possible for the legitimate driver to get their plates changed?

hawkinspeter wrote:

When that happens, is it possible for the legitimate driver to get their plates changed?

Yes, if you report it to the DVLA and they note that your registration is fraudulently being used in multiple crimes they may issue you a new registration number. I believe this is at their discretion though.

If they don't, then for ~£150-£200 you can buy a cheap registration and transfer it.

How do you suggest they find the driver with the cloned plates if he doesn't live at the address where the car is registered?
If this were a murder I could understand the police throwing unlimited resources at it.

"we have taken appropriate action by way of putting reports on the PNC (Police National Computer) & #ANPR, as it is suspected the vehicle is being used illegally, it then can be stopped by patrolling officers"

How does a car not have a current keeper?  If there isn't a new keeper then surely the buck stops with the old keeper?