So he is giving you a warning but will write you a ticket if you don't admit something he can't prove. This is a worrying statement sounds like retaliation for not stroking his ego. Under 164 of the traffic act you do have to give him your information but he refused to give you his name. The irony is baffling just a shoulder number given is this not suspicious. JUST A THOUGHT
The copper technically doesn't have to provide his name. Just his shoulder number. Some coppers do, some don't (provide names). It's a personal preference but they're not obliged to. If you want his name ask to see his Warrant Card.
@@richardjones8699 " A police officer is required to give their name, rank and station if you ask for that information. If you were being searched or the police officer first asked you for your name and address but then refused to provide his identity, he may be guilty of an offence and receive a fine. This is not something that you could personally sue the police officer for. You would need to make a formal complaint about the officer who would then be investigated by the appropriate authorities. More broadly, you have the right to be treated with dignity and respect, to be in public places with whomever you want, to participate in public life, and to freely express yourself. The police are not allowed to unreasonably or disproportionately interfere with these human rights by harassing or abusing you, or using physical violence against you."
@@HarryNicNicholas He/she isn't. They only have to provide their shoulder number and station they operate out of. You can insist on seeing their warrant card or as Cressida Dick said be allowed to ring a station to check they aren't impersonating a officer. The name aspect is incorrect. I der the College of Policing Code of Ethics they have to wear a name badge but there is no legal obligation to provide it verbally - even then they can remove the name badge in instances where they believe they would subsequently be in danger if they wore it. I don't know where you got that from but look it up from a more credible source.
He drove past you and looked and saw your eyes were not on the road, wtf his eyes were not on the road, the sausage admitted he was driving with out his eyes on the road.
Should of asked him to show you his evidence of the crime as you have a right to see it by law, he will then tell you that he saw you as he drove past. He would of them had to take his eyes of the road on the wrong side of the road thus driving without due care and attention. The law makes no allowances for plod not to follow the rules. The don’t like Citizens that stand up for and use there rights, I still want to see my contract with the government where I agree by there rules, I don’t remember signing one.
