Warning Letter From Police - Very Odd

[bad company]

My original post was removed by the ‘PH Police’ because of the swear word in the letter. The original letter included the full text.

Apparently plod don’t know the difference between bare and bear.

Anyway, in this instance it definitely wasn’t me. I was nowhere near Nottinghamshire.

Edited by bad company on Monday 2nd September 21:52

[Monkeylegend]

What is odd about it?

[Silvanus]

Apparently the driver doesn't understand that cycling in a group rather than single file is safer and easier to overtake.

[dundarach]

I agree it's certainly odd that someone so entitled comes on here and complains

[Ham_and_Jam]

I take it you were the vociferous one?

The police are basically telling you to wind your neck in, as the cycling group were following best practice when travelling in groups.

It might slow you down, but it’s the safest method.

[cliffords]

Do you take it from that the cyclist had the alleged behaviour on film , or purely a complaint.
I wonder if you can request the film.
It's a bit your word against the accuser .

Perhaps what was shouted was .Ride in single file whilst in Kent and they misheard.

[Evanivitch]

Did you post it on twitter too?

[Monkeylegend]

bad company said:

My original post was removed by the ‘PH Police’ because of the swear word in the letter. The original letter included the full text.

Apparently plod don’t know the difference between bare and bear.

I love the way they have quoted what you shouted at them verbatim

[essayer]

cliffords said:

Do you take it from that the cyclist had the alleged behaviour on film , or purely a complaint.
I wonder if you can request the film.
It's a bit your word against the accuser .

Perhaps what was shouted was .Ride in single file whilst in Kent and they misheard.

I suspect there was a bunch of witnesses

[sunbeam alpine]

"bare this in mind".

Is this the level of English we should expect from official bodies?

[Simpo Two]

I blame the Highway Code change. Recently, on a twisty single carriageway road, I came up behind two women cycling two abreast, at about 18mph. They kept it up for several miles, quite a tailback building behind them, and if they were aware, they showed no signs of it. They are entitled to do this. It makes no sense to me and flies in the face of common sense.

Equally bad, we also have the opening now for anyone malicious to 'dob someone in' by making up a story to the police if they wish - it doesn't seem to need any evidence. People spying on people is more often a feature of a communist or fascist state.

[p4cks]

sunbeam alpine said:

"bare this in mind".

Is this the level of English we should expect from official bodies?

I was thinking that too!

[robscot]

Simpo Two said:

Equally bad, we also have the opening now for anyone malicious to 'dob someone in' by making up a story to the police if they wish - it doesn't seem to need any evidence.

Thought it was clear there was video - guessing GoPro etc?

Does the OP dispute it?

[CoreyDog]

Saw your post of Twitter/X earlier. Got to admit it raised a smile!

You’ve been quoted by Jeremy Vine now though or a screenshot so be ready for the Lycra Brigade to descend on their cloud of self righteousness.

[Saudade]

Simpo Two said:

I blame the Highway Code change. Recently, on a twisty single carriageway road, I came up behind two women cycling two abreast, at about 18mph. They kept it up for several miles, quite a tailback building behind them, and if they were aware, they showed no signs of it. They are entitled to do this. It makes no sense to me and flies in the face of common sense.

What highway code change? Highway code says to not hold up traffic and has done for ages. Personally a "long queue" for me can be one vehicle if they have been stuck behind me for a while. I will quite happily pull over/slow down some more to get them passed. Thankfully other people do the same for me as well from time to time.

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road-ove...

Edited by Saudade on Monday 2nd September 21:21

[MrBogSmith]

bad company said:

My original post was removed by the ‘PH Police’ because of the swear word in the letter. The original letter included the full text.

Apparently plod don’t know the difference between bare and bear.

Possibly less egregious than knowing the difference as to whether to shout swear words at people from a car or not...

[bad company]

Ham_and_Jam said:

I take it you were the vociferous one?

The police are basically telling you to wind your neck in, as the cycling group were following best practice when travelling in groups.

It might slow you down, but it’s the safest method.

It wasn’t me.

[MrBig]

bad company said:

Ham_and_Jam said:

I take it you were the vociferous one?

The police are basically telling you to wind your neck in, as the cycling group were following best practice when travelling in groups.

It might slow you down, but it’s the safest method.

It wasn’t me.

I can't believe you had to explain that

[Alex Z]

bad company said:

My original post was removed by the ‘PH Police’ because of the swear word in the letter. The original letter included the full text.

Apparently plod don’t know the difference between bare and bear.

Anyway, in this instance it definitely wasn’t me. I was nowhere near Nottinghamshire.

Edited by bad company on Monday 2nd September 21:52

So it’s ok to call people c***s but not to make a simple spelling mistake?

[charltjr]

bad company said:

It wasn’t me.

If only you’d said it wasn’t you and you were nowhere near the area in your original post, maybe people wouldn’t have got all self righteous.

Oh…. Wait…….