Well, Im a cynical b*****d at the best of times and Ive heard the same stories that we all have about coppers having it in for a person based purely on the car they drive.
Im more annoyed about the implications of the act - it rarely seems to be used (at the moment...) but is constructed in a way that gives you, the owner, virtually no grounds for appeal if someone takes a disliking to you it seems.
For example, driving a turbo you have to warm up and warm down. If I get home at 2am I still have to let it idle for a short while (even just 10-15 seconds if Ive been taking it easy on the last part of the journey). If Jo Bloggs, the local busybody, takes it upon himself to report me as causing an "annoyance", no matter how brief, and the old bill decide to support sensible old man rather than irresponsible boy racer (which do you think is more likely?) then Ill have no choice but to change my exhaust to standard, killing power and sounding boring as hell, or risk losing my car.
Once again, the nanny state is removing common sense from the equation and substituting it with more laws that do nothing except allow people with grudges to complain loudly and get their own way, even when nothing really wrong has occurred. "Reasonable Grounds" turns from hard evidence into a collection of hearsay.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
*and breathe*
The proof is the documentation you sign, given to you by an officer. Read it, sign it, call the solicitor later if you want you always have the right to appeal.
