video:Stopped yesterday for photographing in a public place!

spaniel said:
I think you mean 'tangenitial', but there again you might not ;)
Click to expand...

Or possibly `tangential`? I think `tangenitals` or indeed `tangenitials` are what you get on a nudist holiday in Greece.

Or is that just me? ;)
 
big soft moose said:
Ding - my congratulation, on your promotion to moderator


What

oh you havent been - then get out of my face, we've got as much right to discuss tangenitial issues as you have, and two posts is hardly bickering.
Click to expand...

2 posts? there are at least 6 posts on this non topic. I agree with ding, what has it got to do with the topic of the thread? It's irrelevant and nobody is removing your right to discuss it, just it's not on topic for this one.
 
big soft moose said:
Thats clearly a TRO - as those are the signs used for a TRO prohibiting vehicles except for access. ( I know, when i was the ridgeway NTO we used to administer about thirty winter TROs on byway sections)

However TROs of this type are not common on roads in england (Restricted Access TROs are much more common on byways usually for winter months only) and as i said before with the exception of traffic regulation orders misuse of a right of way is an issue of civil trespass against the owner of the land that the right of way crosses (rights of way do have owners - the highway authority maintains the surface to the depth of one spit (spade depth but the landowner retains title to the underlying ground.)

I'd also note that although the police can issue a £30 fixed penalty for violating a TRO, if the driver refuses to take it ithis type is virtually impossible to enforce in court unless the police have observed them entering and cutting through without stopping - as the driver can simply claim I was dropping something off at house x ( and thus legitimately claim that their use falls within 'access' ) for this reason most forces wont even try to enforce them and rely soley on the deterent effect of the signs

incidentally a give away that this is a TRO not straight forward road signing is the duplication of the sign on both sides of a single lane highway - this is required for legal enforcement of a TRO - if there is only one sign the TRO cannot be enforced. Whereas routine road signing only requires a single sign facing the direction of travel

None of which has anything to do with the matter at hand (sorry Yv)
Click to expand...

Blimy just to keep you quiet (said as a laugh) here is the other end of the road note ROAD not private, not a footpath, not a driveway a ROAD, happy now signed both ends :bang:

roadsign.jpg
 
Last edited:
simonblue said:
No update from op yet,would be nice to hear what the inspector had to say to him :)
Click to expand...

Sod that, I need an update on that road! :naughty: :exit:
 
JSER said:
Blimy just to keep you quiet (said as a laugh) here is the other end of the road note ROAD not private, not a footpath, not a driveway a ROAD, happy now signed both ends :bang:
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point mate - I know its a road , my point is that those are traffic regulation order signs , and the original point was that apart from violation of a TRO the misuse of a road/path etc is a civil matter not one for the police.

thats my last word on the tro/not tro matter before any of a quasi moderators get their panties in a wad

Though that said it is germane to the OP in pointing out that photography from a PRoW ( but not a public road) could also be considered a misuse as it doesnt fall into the right to pass and freely repass - but that that misuse would be a civil trespass issue, not a police matter unless the photographer refused to leave/stop shooting when asked by the landowner or their agents
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top