Police at it again

[chadders]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...drive-claims-drunk-cup-tea-car-not-sight.html

Case collapsed when it went to court. Police officer involved should be fired and charged.

But he won't be.
Sadly this kind of behaviour taints all police officers. Unfortunately we seem to be seeing more of it. Witness the three Federation officers lying to the press (perhaps understandable) after their meeting with Mitchell. That was one thing, but compounding it by lying (or being economical with the truth) to the HoC Select Committee is quite another thing.

 

[big soft moose]

as far as I can tell the police officer concerned did nothing wrong so why should he be fired ?

he smelt alcohol on his breath so he asked him to provide a breathalyser - the guy refused so he legitimately arrested him for failing to provide a sample - case was later dropped because the 'criminal protection society' (as they are known to many cops) haven't got the cojones to take a difficult case to court.

if the guy had nothing to hide because he'd "only had a cup of tea" why wouldn't he provide a breathalyser ?

 

[chadders]

He was a fool. But equally so was the officer with his outrageous behaviour. It's that kind of attitude that is increasingly causing the general public to mistrust the police. It's a shame, but it's a fact.

 

[Bernie174]

Adam
It was your point, I answered it. The CPS do not charge just because a file arrives in their office, so your view is totally inaccurate. There is nothing to suggest that police lied in that video. That was the essential point of your post.

 

[gramps]

There is nothing to suggest that police lied in that video. That was the essential point of your post.

Bernie, I think there is ... there is the clear suggestion that the officer was making up a case of driving whilst having alcohol in the blood - now it may not have been that and the officer may have genuinely thought that he had been drinking but any reasonable person would view the video and think 'fit-up'.

 

[barneyrubble]

Bernie, I think there is ... there is the clear suggestion that the officer was making up a case of driving whilst having alcohol in the blood - now it may not have been that and the officer may have genuinely thought that he had been drinking but any reasonable person would view the video and think 'fit-up'.

I think it goes from:

Have you had a drink, to You've had a drink, to He's just admitted to having two drinks and arriving by car without the photographer saying anything except "no I havent, I've had some tea".

 

[Mikesphotaes]

............

Simply because my computer didn't come with something that 'plays' a smell. He may well have smelt of intoxicating liquor, do you know he didn't? So on what basis do you suggest the Police Officer lied?
Now, it's possible he was, but it is equally possible that chummy did smell of drink. None of us know, so none of us can condem anyone for lying.

For goodness sake!

Watch the clip.... "you've just said to me you've had two drinks" , he repeats this again then he says to the other polis "he's admitted to drinking this morning"

Now given that the fella said he had tea, and not two drinks of tea, don't you think that that polis was lying through his teeth?

Smelly vision my backside!

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Adam
It was your point, I answered it. The CPS do not charge just because a file arrives in their office, so your view is totally inaccurate. There is nothing to suggest that police lied in that video. That was the essential point of your post.

Most of my post was about a soldier and his excessive actions, written to express how important not crossing the 'line' is.

The lying bit is obvious, to deny it happened is incredibly blinkered and my old fav, bainwashed!

I don't laugh at all your posts sorry about that, I take your opinion seriously, just giggle sometimes maybe.

 

[Mikesphotaes]

as far as I can tell the police officer concerned did nothing wrong so why should he be fired ?

he smelt alcohol on his breath so he asked him to provide a breathalyser - the guy refused so he legitimately arrested him for failing to provide a sample - case was later dropped because the 'criminal protection society' (as they are known to many cops) haven't got the cojones to take a difficult case to court.

if the guy had nothing to hide because he'd "only had a cup of tea" why wouldn't he provide a breathalyser ?

Look at the clip again then my post 47 if you still can't figure it out.

The polis lied his head off!

 

[Bernie174]

For goodness sake!

Watch the clip.... "you've just said to me you've had two drinks" , he repeats this again then he says to the other polis "he's admitted to drinking this morning"

Now given that the fella said he had tea, and not two drinks of tea, don't you think that that polis was lying through his teeth?

Smelly vision my backside!

It's Police, not some silly shorthand.

Thats not evidence! If he can smell alcohol, then it's irrelevant what he said. It's what is in the blood, not what he says. I have been told numerous times by people they have not had a drink, yet they still manage to blow way over the limit.
So you say he lied at the scene, it may be the case, it may not, it may be he misunderstood, it may be he chose to misunderstand, he may not have heard bits of what he said. At the moment, therefore there is no evidence of lying, it's simply your opinion, nothing more.
Try changing what you say to there's a difference to what the 2 parties said, not an automatic assumption someone's lied.

Adam
the same answer applies equally to you. How many times have we seen this on this site, an automatic leap to conclusions, and yet, ultimately the Police Officer acquitted by a Jury or Magistrate who has heard and seen all the evidence.

Now, yes there's a line, and in the circumstances that apply in that video, no I don't think there was a crossing of it, nor do I agree, for the reasons I gave earlier was this something to do with the ways and means act.

What none of you have considered is maybe he did smell of alcohol, and maybe he was over the Drink Drive limit. None of us know, so none of us should be leaping to any conclusion or judgment over it.

 

[barneyrubble]

Bernie..... Whether he did or didn't smell of alcohol is irrelevant, seeing as according to press reports he stayed overnight at the campsite there. The officer has no reason to believe that he had come by car at all. He'd not seen him getting out of one.... So why trump that bit up?

The officer has jumped to conclusions about the driving at the very least, and chosen his own facts for what the guy has said and even changed his story of what the photographer said during the video - see my post above.

 

[Garry Edwards]

It's Police, not some silly shorthand.

Thats not evidence! If he can smell alcohol, then it's irrelevant what he said. It's what is in the blood, not what he says. I have been told numerous times by people they have not had a drink, yet they still manage to blow way over the limit.
So you say he lied at the scene, it may be the case, it may not, it may be he misunderstood, it may be he chose to misunderstand, he may not have heard bits of what he said. At the moment, therefore there is no evidence of lying, it's simply your opinion, nothing more.
Try changing what you say to there's a difference to what the 2 parties said, not an automatic assumption someone's lied.

Adam
the same answer applies equally to you. How many times have we seen this on this site, an automatic leap to conclusions, and yet, ultimately the Police Officer acquitted by a Jury or Magistrate who has heard and seen all the evidence.

Now, yes there's a line, and in the circumstances that apply in that video, no I don't think there was a crossing of it, nor do I agree, for the reasons I gave earlier was this something to do with the ways and means act.

What none of you have considered is maybe he did smell of alcohol, and maybe he was over the Drink Drive limit. None of us know, so none of us should be leaping to any conclusion or judgment over it.

Bernie,
You've made some valid points, but please don't try to muddy the waters by saying

ultimately the Police Officer acquitted by a Jury or Magistrate who has heard and seen all the evidence.

because we both know that convictions or acquittals are dependent on the evidence presented, in the Crown Court the jury are required to acquit unless they are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, and in the Magistrate's Court... well, anything can happen there, especially as nearly all accused plead guilty, no doubt leaving many magistrates believing that the police always give true evidence.

 

[Mikesphotaes]

It's simply a waste of time arguing with you Bernie174.

Once a polis, always a polis!

 

[Bernie174]

Nope, never been 'polis'.

Garry
Like it or not, believe it or not, until someone has been convicted, and that includes being acquitted, they are innocent. To imply otherwise can lead, if the accused person wishes lead to an almost automatic win in civil court for libel/slander. It is the primary point of UK Law.
Any argument you want to present on the matter is knocked into touch by that.
On your last point, Police very rarely give evidence of offence. Most defendants are charged as a result of other evidence and the result of investigation. In other words there's little for the Courts to believe of the Police.
In any case, it certainly isn't muddying waters. The same thing happens on all these sorts of post, automatic attack on police, evidence , that is proper evidence not required. And in nearly every case where that's happened, if there have been criminal proceedings the officer has been acquitted. Now, to me that should tell people something. If you don't know the evidence you are not qualified to judge. In everyone of those cases, some on here seem to think otherwise.

Barney

Whether he did or didn't smell of alcohol is irrelevant, seeing as according to press reports he stayed overnight at the campsite there

Oh the press said? That MUST be true then....Meanwhile back in the real world, on your other points.......It ain't necessarily so.

 

[POAH]

as far as I can tell the police officer concerned did nothing wrong so why should he be fired ?

he smelt alcohol on his breath so he asked him to provide a breathalyser - the guy refused so he legitimately arrested him for failing to provide a sample - case was later dropped because the 'criminal protection society' (as they are known to many cops) haven't got the cojones to take a difficult case to court.

if the guy had nothing to hide because he'd "only had a cup of tea" why wouldn't he provide a breathalyser ?

doesn't matter that he drove there. he could have had a drink afterwards and not break any laws. They had no justification for trying to breathalyse him. He doesn't have to give a sample if they have no reason to test his breath. I have in the past drove up to uni on a Friday night, got drunk, taxi home and got the car the next day in the afternoon. now if I am outside the pub and the police smell alcohol on my breath they can't breathalyse me.

 

[PMN]

doesn't matter that he drove there. he could have had a drink afterwards and not break any laws. They had no justification for trying to breathalyse him. He doesn't have to give a sample if they have no reason to test his breath. I have in the past drove up to uni on a Friday night, got drunk, taxi home and got the car the next day in the afternoon. now if I am outside the pub and the police smell alcohol on my breath they can't breathalyse me.

Precisely what I was thinking.

 

[big soft moose]

yes they can - if they have a 'reasonable suspicion' that you've been driving under the influence.

AS Bernie said earlier its a daft thing to nick him for - they should have taken the obstruction route (they'd have got a conviction and we wouldn't be having this conversation) , but that doesn't make it illegitimate, its just daft because its harder to prove.

If he hadn't been behind the cordon getting in the way and generally being a major league t*** it wouldn't have happened, so he only has himself to blame. Its not a sign of heavy handed policing or of an officer doing anything wrong, its just a sign that if you set out to aggravate and obstruct the police you'll wind up in the cells and rightly so

 

[PMN]

yes they can - if they have a 'reasonable suspicion' that you've been driving under the influence.

It seems fairly obvious to me that the officer was looking for a reason to get rid of the guy because he knew full well he couldn't otherwise, that aside I thought his entire approach was grossly unprofessional. "I could arrest you but I'm not going to" just doesn't make any sense, if you can arrest someone for committing an offence but you don't surely that's just plain negligence? If you can't arrest someone because they haven't committed an offence then threatening to do so is outright wrong.

 

[big soft moose]

It seems fairly obvious to me that the officer was looking for a reason to get rid of the guy because he knew full well he couldn't otherwise.

As Bernie essentially said earlier

" move"

"no"

" Right your nicked for obstructing a highway, obstructing an officer in the course of his duty, being a major league POAH, and anything else we can think of"

The cop probably was looking for a reason to get rid of him, because he was getting in the way of their policing the demo - as I said moral of this story if you set out to annoy the police you've got to be prepared for the consequences

 

[PMN]

As Bernie essentially said earlier

" move"

"no"

" Right your nicked for obstructing a highway, obstructing an officer in the course of his duty, being a major league POAH, and anything else we can think of"

The cop probably was looking for a reason to get rid of him, because he was getting in the way of their policing the demo - as I said moral of this story if you set out to annoy the police you've got to be prepared for the consequences

Naturally we're going on available info but the case ostensibly seems fairly clear, it seems the guy didn't commit an offence that warranted arrest so the police looked for another reason to arrest him with absolutely no clear evidence. And you're okay with that? I'm certainly not.

 

[big soft moose]

From what I saw on that video he committed at least two arrestable offences - plus possibly a third if the cops could indeed smell alcohol on his breath and had reasonable suspicion that he'd been driving - its a shame they picked one that the CPS lacked the cojones to take to court.

What I'm not okay with is bellends like that getting in the way of the cops while they are doing a difficult enough job of policing a far from peaceful demonstration , and even more so with them then crying about the consequences and people making out that they are heros/victims - all he is in my view is a silly little man who decided to obstruct the police for no good reason then suffered the consequences.

 

[PMN]

From what I saw on that video he committed at least two arrestable offences - plus possibly a third if the cops could indeed smell alcohol on his breath and had reasonable suspicion that he'd been driving - its a shame they picked one that the CPS lacked the cojones to take to court.

What I'm not okay with is bellends like that getting in the way of the cops while they are doing a difficult enough job of policing a far from peaceful demonstration , and even more so with them then crying about the consequences and people making out that they are heros/victims - all he is in my view is a silly little man who decided to obstruct the police for no good reason then suffered the consequences.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree then, as I disagree with absolutely everything you're saying. If he was obstructing the officers and that was an arrestable offence then he should have been arrested for it and faced the consequences, it seems fairly clear that wasn't the case. I'm not anti-police by any means and I never have been, but when I see such spectacularly unprofessional behaviour and attitudes like those in that video I just shake my head in disbelief.

 

[gramps]

He didn't obstruct anyone, they just objected to him videoing the arrest.

 

[PMN]

He didn't obstruct anyone, they just objected to him videoing the arrest.

That's exactly what I saw as well, he didn't seem to obstruct anything.

 

[big soft moose]

He didn't obstruct anyone, they just objected to him videoing the arrest.

what was he doing on the wrong side of the cordon ?

also failing to obey a lawful instruction (or whatever the exact wording is) is arrestable

 

[gramps]

also failing to obey a lawful instruction (or whatever the exact wording is) is arrestable

A lawful instruction may be to stop your car on the signal of a police officer, it doesn't mean following whatever a police officer yells at you.

 

[big soft moose]

A lawful instruction may be to stop your car on the signal of a police officer, it doesn't mean following whatever a police officer yells at you.

It means following their instructions so long as its lawfully given - if they tell you to move, you move, you don't argue the toss and act like a prat

also interfering in an arrest is an offence as well

 

[gramps]

It means following their instructions so long as its lawfully given - if they tell you to move, you move, you don't argue the toss and act like a prat

also interfering in an arrest is an offence as well

Nobody 'interfered with an arrest' and a police officer saying "move" does not necessarily constitute a lawful instruction.

As I have already said, the photographer was an idiot but the police conduct was sadly lacking and unnecessary.

 

[bindex]

On balance this was appalling behaviour by the police. Nothing short of "bully boy" tactics.
I was brought up to respect them but have less and less reason to do so. They are there to uphold the law, not to make it up to suit themselves.

 

[johnny8977]

My 2p worth on this whole debacle - the biggest prats in this were both sides of the camera. The initial cop (an inspector? can't remember) and the photographer.

The Inspector didn't speak appropriately to the guy, bearing in mind the type of protest, the members of the public there were always going to be slightly more switched on than a typical EDL march, and the Insp didn't change his behaviour to suit.

But, if the photographer had taken the breath test, none of this would have happened. I know several of you have said, "Well, if I don't think they should breathalyse me, then they can't" or words to that effect. Can you see what's wrong with that position? It would mean every drink driver simply says they don't agree with being tested and gets away with it. It even states in legislation that a disagreement over the reasons for the test do not amount to a reason to refuse. Anyway, the cops who asked him for a sample of breath had reasonable suspicion he had been drinking and driven - the suspicion test is quite low and one can easily argue that it's reasonable to come to that conclusion based on what the Insp told them. So now, there is a LEGAL requirement for the photographer to provide a sample of breath and refusal would lead to arrest. Which it did. I'm pretty certain they would have also asked for a sample on the evidential machine at the station that presumably he refused that as well. The offence is now complete. The whys and wherefores are irrelevant. He was quite rightly charged (by the police as CPS do not make charging decisions for these type of traffic cases) and he should have been convicted. The fact the CPS didn't run it sums up the spineless and useless people that make the decisions in court.

There is plenty wrong with the Justice system in this country, and the Police are the only ones that keep it together.

I could spend all night arguing about this and it's good to see some well balanced and educated views on here, as opposed to the comments section of the typical Daily Mail story.

 

[barneyrubble]

Barney



Oh the press said? That MUST be true then....Meanwhile back in the real world, on your other points.......It ain't necessarily so.

Well its more reliable that what you're going on. You dont seem to have watched the video at all

 

[barneyrubble]

But, if the photographer had taken the breath test, none of this would have happened. I know several of you have said, "Well, if I don't think they should breathalyse me, then they can't" or words to that effect. Can you see what's wrong with that position? It would mean every drink driver simply says they don't agree with being tested and gets away with it. It even states in legislation that a disagreement over the reasons for the test do not amount to a reason to refuse. Anyway, the cops who asked him for a sample of breath had reasonable suspicion he had been drinking and driven - the suspicion test is quite low and one can easily argue that it's reasonable to come to that conclusion based on what the Insp told them. So now, there is a LEGAL requirement for the photographer to provide a sample of breath and refusal would lead to arrest. Which it did. I'm pretty certain they would have also asked for a sample on the evidential machine at the station that presumably he refused that as well. The offence is now complete. The whys and wherefores are irrelevant. He was quite rightly charged (by the police as CPS do not make charging decisions for these type of traffic cases) and he should have been convicted. The fact the CPS didn't run it sums up the spineless and useless people that make the decisions in court.

There is plenty wrong with the Justice system in this country, and the Police are the only ones that keep it together.

I could spend all night arguing about this and it's good to see some well balanced and educated views on here, as opposed to the comments section of the typical Daily Mail story.

Is there?? They didnt see him get out of a car so how can they suggest he's drink driving when they havent seen him in one?

 

[PMN]

if the photographer had taken the breath test, none of this would have happened. I know several of you have said, "Well, if I don't think they should breathalyse me, then they can't" or words to that effect. Can you see what's wrong with that position? It would mean every drink driver simply says they don't agree with being tested and gets away with it. It even states in legislation that a disagreement over the reasons for the test do not amount to a reason to refuse.

The flaw in your reasoning is the fact they tried to breathalyse this guy when he was nowhere near a car and there was absolutely nothing to prove he'd been driving, that's a completely different situation to stopping someone actually driving a car. He said he'd only had tea and there's no reason to believe otherwise but what would have happened if he had driven there, parked up and had a beer afterwards intending a designated driver to drive later? He'd have blown positive on the breathalyser but committed absolutely no crime, would they have arrested him on the off chance he *may* have been driving after a few beers?

Not one tiny little bit of the entire drink-driving thing here makes any sense whatsoever, there's absolutely nothing even vaguely concrete to support it.

 

[POAH]

yes they can - if they have a 'reasonable suspicion' that you've been driving under the influence.

but they didn't here and that's the point

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Like it or not, believe it or not, until someone has been convicted, and that includes being acquitted, they are innocent. To imply otherwise can lead, if the accused person wishes lead to an almost automatic win in civil court for libel/slander. It is the primary point of UK Law.
Any argument you want to present on the matter is knocked into touch by that.
On your last point, Police very rarely give evidence of offence. Most defendants are charged as a result of other evidence and the result of investigation. In other words there's little for the Courts to believe of the Police.
In any case, it certainly isn't muddying waters. The same thing happens on all these sorts of post, automatic attack on police, evidence , that is proper evidence not required. And in nearly every case where that's happened, if there have been criminal proceedings the officer has been acquitted. Now, to me that should tell people something. If you don't know the evidence you are not qualified to judge. In everyone of those cases, some on here seem to think otherwise.

.

Different perspective to how most of us lead our lives I'd suggest, most of us understand that good behaviour starts at home, we don't depend on the judicial system to decide what is and isn't daily good behaviour... most of us have go the gist of it, something along the lines of treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself.
For me most of your post reads like this, almost opposite; No matter what really happened, or what people say as witnesses or victims, or actually saw and heard on video, none of that counts in the slightest really, and only the courts decision of facts provided to them is the absolute final reality?
Its sounds very like what you police guys are saying is; No matter what the real events of the situation, no matter the 'aims' of the law to be fair at all times, officers will find a excuse under the pretence of 'necessary authority' no matter if right or wrong but just so long as it can be backed by manipulating or utilising the non-perfect judicial system to render your actions non prosecutable in a court of law?
So am I reading you right, you guys think this means you are 'right' to step over the line for the cause of 'controlling authority' for instance, simply because you can get away with it in a court of law, which as you say Bernie, is where it really counts ...and that is why is ok, with the law on your side in manipulated but legal defence, to behave poorly?

 

[Bernie174]

Adam

Your post is very interesting, but falls down in one very important point.
In this particular case, there's no evidence at all supporting what you're saying.
So looking at it all.

Police want chummy out of the inner cordon he wont go of his own accord. 2 very easy ways of doing that, 'ways and means' not needed. 1. Take hold and remove him. All perfectly legal. 2. Nick him for obstruction, again perfectly lawful.

Attitude (for want of a better word) of Officers. He should not be where he was. Had he been asked nicely before? You don't know, nor do I. But either way, it's a public order environment, being polite almost never works.

Smell of Alcohol. If the Police smelt alcohol, and saw him getting out of his car earlier (it matters not that he now says he was in the campsite all night, how are police to know that based on what he said in the video?), then they are within rights to go through the process of drink drive.

So there's no pretence, there's no ways and means, there's no stepping over the line what they did, was on the face of it perfectly reasonable. Now it may be that some of those factors are not there. For example maybe he didn't smell of drink. But none of you KNOW that to be the case, some have assumed, but that isn't knowing, and knowing is the only basis for the critical comments.

The solution was simple, chummy goes to the other side of the cordon.

 

[johnny8977]

The flaw in your reasoning is the fact they tried to breathalyse this guy when he was nowhere near a car and there was absolutely nothing to prove he'd been driving, that's a completely different situation to stopping someone actually driving a car. He said he'd only had tea and there's no reason to believe otherwise but what would have happened if he had driven there, parked up and had a beer afterwards intending a designated driver to drive later? He'd have blown positive on the breathalyser but committed absolutely no crime, would they have arrested him on the off chance he *may* have been driving after a few beers?

Not one tiny little bit of the entire drink-driving thing here makes any sense whatsoever, there's absolutely nothing even vaguely concrete to support it.

But there doesn't HAVE TO BE PROOF HE'D BEEN DRIVING. That's the point. The cops administering the test had to have reasonable suspicion - and they did based on what their boss said (whether that's right for him to say isn't the point). Once they have they reasonable suspicion there is a legal requirement for him to provide a sample, which he didn't. Offence complete. There's a massive difference in law to the words suspect and believe. In the example you cite above, if he'd driven and then had a few beers - he may well have been arrested on SUSPICION of drink driving, but then to charge the police would have had to PROOF he had been driving. Here is a simple case of he is legally required to provide a sample of breath and he refused. That's an offence in itself.

It kind of makes me laugh - anyone with any knowledge of the police and the law surrounding drink driving knows how absolutely massively complicated it is, but everyone else seems to think it's really actually quite straight forward and should make common sense. Nothing about the law makes common sense when you get down to the nitty gritty of it - that's why lawyers and barristers make £££££££'s. But this example is about as straight forward and uncomplicated as it does get, and the CPS still managed to cock it up.

 

[johnny8977]

Is there?? They didnt see him get out of a car so how can they suggest he's drink driving when they havent seen him in one?

Because their boss said he'd been. Rightly or wrongly, but that is still enough for those cops to form that reasonable suspicion.

You ring the police and say you've seen your neighbour get blind drunk, get in his car and drive round for half an hour and then come home. Should the police not do anything about that, because they haven't seen him drive?

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Adam

Your post is very interesting, but falls down in one very important point.
In this particular case, there's no evidence at all supporting what you're saying.
So looking at it all.
...

Thanks, but I wasn't talking about this case Bernie, I was talking about the general attitude in reference to wording and inference I get from your post I quoted.

So thanks for acusing me that I've failed in one important point which I wasn't making, then go onto reiterate what we've all already disagreed about several times on this thread, while at the same time missing my actaul point of discussion!

hmmm... best shut my mouth right now I think.

 

[gramps]

this example is about as straight forward and uncomplicated as it does get, and the CPS still managed to cock it up.

Yes, it's straight forward and uncomplicated but IMO the CPS saved further embarrassment and time wasting, they didn't 'cock it up'.