I suppose the police are too busy harassing peaceful protesters to do
this job themselves.

"Speed guns and cameras may be ever-more advanced, but in the village
of Swarland, they're catching out motorists with a more traditional
device - the naked eye.

Police have asked residents to watch out for drivers who may be
breaking the speed limit - and pass the details on.

The supposed offender will have their registration number, gender, and
the date of alleged offence stored on a controversial police database.

If a motorist is reported twice, an officer will pay them a visit. If
they are reported a third time, police will make them a target to look
out for..."

More:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1046564/Police-invite-public-shop-neighbours...

"Doug" riseup.net> wrote in message
news:f9ef2dd1-f68a-4a74-bfbc-4ee8fc8aefe2@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

*Peaceful* protesters have nothing to worry about from the Police, but I
doubt you would recognise one of those.

As also mentioned in the article
'The people who are going to be doing this have not been trained, do not
have the ability to measure speed accurately, will get it wrong by upwards
of 20mph and will end up reporting their neighbours or people they don't
like.'

It is a very silly idea.

Colin Bignell

Doug riseup.net> wrote:

A peaceful protester brought the M25 to a standstill last week.
Something that you no doubt dream about. He was protesting about one of
your old hobby horses, you hit and run semen depositor.

So what did the police do? They left him largely alone for seven hours
until he decided to climb down from the motorway gantry.

The police gave a clear statement:

'A Metropolitan Police spokeswoman said that despite queues that
stretched for 19km (12 miles) on the M25 and 32km (20 miles) on the M4,
the decision to allow the man to stay on the gantry all day was made by
the senior officer at the scene.

"He has the right to protest peacefully. It is entirely a matter for the
senior officer," she said.'

Note that Duhng. The *Police* consider that individuals have a right to
protest peacefully and as long as that protest is *peaceful* then the
individual will be permitted to protest unmolested.

"nightjar .me.uk>" wrote in message
news:hpSdnfai59dB5jfVnZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d@giganews.com...

I think that Doug and his kind would say that unless a protestor is making
himself as obnoxious as possible, physically disrupting lawful activities
and intimidating people, that protestor isn't doing his job properly. And
yet they still want the police to handle therm with kid gloves, even though
they use knuckleduster tactics.

"Steve Firth" <%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1ilwz32.it7rmex4dcfdN%%%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk...

Mortimer wrote:

Mortimer privacy.net> wrote:

In this case, it's arguable that the protestor caused no inconvenience.
I drove past the site that day (opposite carriageway) and it was fairly
clear that the obstruction was caused by the police, not the protester.

"Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l9udnYGWa7ZMEzfVnZ2dnUVZ8h2dnZ2d@bt.com...

"Steve Firth" <%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1ilx0o6.1m2r51g1fx3rq4N%%%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk...

I'm inclined to think that as well: the delays may have been caused in part
by drivers rubber-neckering but they were mainly as a result of the police
deciding to close the road.

If the man was at sufficient risk to require the road to be closed to protet
him and the traffic, then he should have been removed, to make his protest
from the side of the road.

Depresion wrote: