A minor one but it annoys me

[s6boy]

Stopped for not wearing a seat belt. I maintained that I was. Brief details but for the purpose of my question not important.

Letter arrives and the first sentence is:
'You have confirmed you committed the alleged offence'

At no time did I confirm anything. So given the options given would you:
A. Accept an educational course.
B. Pay a fixed penalty.
C. Request a court hearing.

Clearly A is easiest but it would leave me feeling that I've been forced into a situation I was not responsible for.
Last question, I assume to be able to request body camera coverage I'd need to opt for option C?

[Terminator X]

You must have failed the attitude test. Now you have a ticket you are screwed as even in court the rozzers view will be given more credence than yours.

TX.

[Monkeylegend]

s6boy said:

Stopped for not wearing a seat belt. I maintained that I was. Brief details but for the purpose of my question not important.

Letter arrives and the first sentence is:
'You have confirmed you committed the alleged offence'

At no time did I confirm anything. So given the options given would you:
A. Accept an educational course.
B. Pay a fixed penalty.
C. Request a court hearing.

Clearly A is easiest but it would leave me feeling that I've been forced into a situation I was not responsible for.
Last question, I assume to be able to request body camera coverage I'd need to opt for option C?

So you weren't wearing one then ?

[iphonedyou]

s6boy said:

Clearly A is easiest but it would leave me feeling that I've been forced into a situation I was not responsible for.

Presuming you weren't wearing your seatbelt, then you need to go back a step. You're responsible for the situation at the point you didn't put your seatbelt on.

[LosingGrip]

s6boy said:

Stopped for not wearing a seat belt. I maintained that I was. Brief details but for the purpose of my question not important.

Letter arrives and the first sentence is:
'You have confirmed you committed the alleged offence'

At no time did I confirm anything. So given the options given would you:
A. Accept an educational course.
B. Pay a fixed penalty.
C. Request a court hearing.

Clearly A is easiest but it would leave me feeling that I've been forced into a situation I was not responsible for.
Last question, I assume to be able to request body camera coverage I'd need to opt for option C?

Where you wearing it yes or no?

Body worn will only be provided if you go not guilty at court.

[Richard-D]

Monkeylegend said:

s6boy said:

Stopped for not wearing a seat belt. I maintained that I was. Brief details but for the purpose of my question not important.

Letter arrives and the first sentence is:
'You have confirmed you committed the alleged offence'

At no time did I confirm anything. So given the options given would you:
A. Accept an educational course.
B. Pay a fixed penalty.
C. Request a court hearing.

Clearly A is easiest but it would leave me feeling that I've been forced into a situation I was not responsible for.
Last question, I assume to be able to request body camera coverage I'd need to opt for option C?

So you weren't wearing one then ?

The way I read that he made the distinction that he "maintained that he was" because the letter states that he had admitted to not wearing a seat belt. To me, that doesn't suggest in any way that he wasn't wearing one.

[speedking31]

Are you a delivery driver, or have another exemption?

[s6boy]

I didn't mean to get into a 'was I wasn't I' as it's too late now the letter has come through. However yes I was, the officer was doing a u-turn into my lane from a side road and in my opinion wasn't clearly sighted as I had already seen him from 100m away. My question though was based on the misrepresentation of what and wasn't said

[LosingGrip]

s6boy said:

I didn't mean to get into a 'was I wasn't I' as it's too late now the letter has come through. However yes I was, the officer was doing a u-turn into my lane from a side road and in my opinion wasn't clearly sighted as I had already seen him from 100m away. My question though was based on the misrepresentation of what and wasn't said

Was that when you put your belt on? Or did you have it on at the start of your drive? The reason I ask is I've stopped countless people that say they had their seatbelt on when they saw me...but not when I saw them further up the road.

By paying the ticket you are admitting you had your belt off.

They can't offer you a ticket if you deny it (at least in my force). Which is properly why it's worded like that.

I stop lots that say that they weren't speeding/using their phone etc. Rarely do they go to court.

[E-bmw]

s6boy said:

the officer was doing a u-turn into my lane from a side road

How did he do a u-turn from a side road?

Just trying to get EXACTLY what happened straight.

Also, how did the actual initial stop happen?

Were you wearing the belt when he came to your window?

[57Ford]

LosingGrip said:

I stop lots that say that they weren't speeding/using their phone etc. Rarely do they go to court.

Yes, we’re easy prey aren’t we. 20 years ago, I had finished a call on my bluetooth headset (remember those?) and after switching it off I put it in my breast pocket. PC Snotty Attitude made a U-turn then pulled me over and despite me being perfectly polite and happy to accept he could have made an error, he basically told me I was lying when I said I was using my headset rather than a phone. No proof required and I ended up with a ticket. Traffic car with cameras all over it but he was unable to show me the footage. There’s really no point wasting a day’s wage and going to court for some out of touch magistrate to decide that a police officer’s word carries far more weight than mine.
I agree that idiots driving while on the phone are a bloody menace, but it’s just wrong that things like that can happen.

[s6boy]

E-bmw said:

How did he do a u-turn from a side road?

I didn't see him pull in but assume travelling in the opposite direction, pulled into a side road junction and when I saw him was still at an angle to my direction of travel turning my way.

E-bmw said:

Just trying to get EXACTLY what happened straight.

E-bmw said:

Also, how did the actual initial stop happen?

Lights and siren came on when he caught up, maybe 100m further on

E-bmw said:

Were you wearing the belt when he came to your window?

Yes

[s6boy]

LosingGrip said:

Where you wearing it yes or no?

Body worn will only be provided if you go not guilty at court.

I missed this before responding to another question.
Yes to wearing and your last response answers my question. Thanks.
It seems taking an 'educational course' is the easiest way to put an end to this. I'm sure of 2 things one that his camera wouldn't have seen me without a seat belt and that it wouldn't have heard me admit to not wearing a belt. Having said that the hassle of waiting for and attending a magistrates hearing and the uncertainty if they'd side with the officer if there was no video evidence available makes me think it's better to take it on the chin.
The title now feels understated as it more than annoys me.

[LosingGrip]

57Ford said:

Yes, we’re easy prey aren’t we.

Yep. Makes my job of dealing with the fatal five a lot easier when so many people commit the offences right in front of me.

s6boy said:

I missed this before responding to another question.
Yes to wearing and your last response answers my question. Thanks.
It seems taking an 'educational course' is the easiest way to put an end to this. I'm sure of 2 things one that his camera wouldn't have seen me without a seat belt and that it wouldn't have heard me admit to not wearing a belt. Having said that the hassle of waiting for and attending a magistrates hearing and the uncertainty if they'd side with the officer if there was no video evidence available makes me think it's better to take it on the chin.
The title now feels understated as it more than annoys me.

So you weren't wearing it?

[StuTheGrouch]

LosingGrip said:

So you weren't wearing it?

That's not how I read it. OP is saying that he was wearing a seatbelt and so the bodycam wouldn't have picked him up admiting otherwise.

[LosingGrip]

StuTheGrouch said:

That's not how I read it. OP is saying that he was wearing a seatbelt and so the bodycam wouldn't have picked him up admiting otherwise.

Ah I read it the other way in that I said it but the camera wouldn't have picked it up.

[E-bmw]

s6boy said:

E-bmw said:

How did he do a u-turn from a side road?

I didn't see him pull in but assume travelling in the opposite direction, pulled into a side road junction and when I saw him was still at an angle to my direction of travel turning my way.

E-bmw said:

Just trying to get EXACTLY what happened straight.

E-bmw said:

Also, how did the actual initial stop happen?

Lights and siren came on when he caught up, maybe 100m further on

E-bmw said:

Were you wearing the belt when he came to your window?

Yes

OK, so how come when he asked if you were wearing how is it that it didn't come up in conversation that you were/weren't, and how did you admit to it?

if that is what happened/didn't happen then you need to get down to his local station & question what has happened.

[LosingGrip]

E-bmw said:

if that is what happened/didn't happen then you need to get down to his local station & question what has happened.

Don't do that. It won't do anything.

The OP will need to request a court hearing from the paperwork they have been sent.

[James6112]

A)

A bad apple

[Bigends]

LosingGrip said:

s6boy said:

Stopped for not wearing a seat belt. I maintained that I was. Brief details but for the purpose of my question not important.

Letter arrives and the first sentence is:
'You have confirmed you committed the alleged offence'

At no time did I confirm anything. So given the options given would you:
A. Accept an educational course.
B. Pay a fixed penalty.
C. Request a court hearing.

Clearly A is easiest but it would leave me feeling that I've been forced into a situation I was not responsible for.
Last question, I assume to be able to request body camera coverage I'd need to opt for option C?

Where you wearing it yes or no?

Body worn will only be provided if you go not guilty at court.

Can the OP no longer submit a subject access request for the footage?