Police at it again

johnny8977 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about him being breathalysed, I'm talking about what it would prove even if he took and failed the test. It would prove absolutely nothing. If you can tell me how they'd prove he'd been drink driving then go right ahead, I'd love to hear it.
 
Last edited:
Adam

In general these posts follow the same pattern, I simply used this particular case, but what I am trying to get over to you applies to everyone of these subjects.

Something happens, and a video or news article is produced. Based on that alone, which is always lacking in all of the facts, the usual suspects attack police and make what amounts to libelous comment.
In some cases thats all that is given to the public, and it ends with the usual suspects feeling certain their prejudices have been validated.
In a few cases, the real facts are presented to a court, all of the facts are heard by a Jury/Magistrate and the officers are more often than not acquitted.

So, what should be learned from that? Well, firstly forming an opinion on limited information, hearsay, videos from Youtube and press reports is a very precarious thing to do. Secondly, those that are apt to leap on the Police are always wrong are hypocritical in doing so. They expect to have a presumption of innocence, yet it's just dandy to accuse Police (or whatever other hate group they detest this week) of wrongdoing with no reliable evidence.

Gramps

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

Really? So who authorised the charge in the first place?
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
I'm not talking about him being breathalysed, I'm talking about what it would prove even if he took and failed the test. It would prove absolutely nothing. If you can tell me how they'd prove he'd been drink driving then go right ahead, I'd love to hear it.
Click to expand...

If he'd had failed the test, he would have been arrested in suspicion of OPL (drink driving). Then because presumably no-one had actually seen him driving, he would have been released insufficient evidence following interview. But if someone would have been willing to provide a statement with good enough ID evidence as to him being driving, and depending on what he said in interview, a process called back calculation would have been conducted to show what exactly his alcohol limit would have been at the relevant time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
I can just see the scenario now....

There I am walking down the high street doing my shopping when I approach a police man to ask the time and instead of telling me the time he say's:

Policeman: you have been drinking

Me: no I haven't

Policeman: you just told me you had two drinks

Me: no i didn't

Policeman: Please blow into my breathalyzer

Me: no

Policeman: your nicked.

See what I did there?
 
Keith W said:
I can just see the scenario now....

There I am walking down the high street doing my shopping when I approach a police man to ask the time and instead of telling me the time he say's:

Policeman: you have been drinking

Me: no I haven't

Policeman: you just told me you had two drinks

Me: no i didn't

Policeman: Please blow into my breathalyzer

Me: no

Policeman: your nicked.

See what I did there?
Click to expand...

Don't worry Bernie will have a simple explanation :D
 
Who brought the charge and on what level of evidence would the charge have been authorised?
Click to expand...

Gramps you claim to have been in the Police. If that's true, and I now doubt it, you'd know the answer.

The CPS brought the charge, they authorised it, and they don't unless Police present them with sufficient evidence to support that charge, and that they, the CPS think it is in the public interest.

What they did not do, is get a phone call from the police saying "Just nicked a guy for alco"
and say "Charge him!"

Keith

And the Police would want to do that for what reason?

If you think that bit of fantasy happens then you need to go and find yourself a good hospital to be admitted too.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Gramps you claim to have been in the Police. If that's true, and I now doubt it, you'd know the answer.

The CPS brought the charge, they authorised it, and they don't unless Police present them with sufficient evidence to support that charge, and that they, the CPS think it is in the public interest.
Click to expand...

You and I both know it isn't that simplistic, having defence evidence presented can change the whole picture and clearly when they saw the real picture the CPS knew it was unsafe to proceed with a court case. Oh and yes I am ex-Police, not incidentally an apologist for the Police :)
 
Actually it would have been the police who charged him as charging decisions for most traffic offences (exc. death and dangerous) are now with the police. As for what level of evidence did they charge him - simple. Was there a legal requirement for him to provide a sample of breath - yes. Did he provide - no. As I've said before, offence complete. Charge and should have been run at court.
 
johnny8977 said:
Was there a legal requirement for him to provide a sample of breath - yes. Did he provide - no. As I've said before, offence complete. Charge and should have been run at court.
Click to expand...

Except that the CPS clearly realised that there was something really wrong here, otherwise it would have been exactly as you say ... offence committed, charged, convicted!
I will be interesting to see the outcome of his civil action, (which will probably be a preemptive payout).
 
Perhaps, or more likely IMO the CPS lawyer who picked the file up on the morning thought it was more hassle than it's worth and couldn't be bothered as it wasn't as straight forward as 99% of fail to provide cases or got wind of the negative publicity and thought by dropping it like a hot potato the focus would stay with the police.
 
Paul
In general, you may be correct, but in this case, I'd be very surprised if they hadn't sent an advice file to the CPS first. Obviously there is more to this than a video, and it may well not have been necessary.




Except that the CPS clearly realised that there was something really wrong here, otherwise it would have been exactly as you say ... offence committed, charged, convicted!
Click to expand...

Except that isn't correct. The CPS drop charges for all sorts of reasons, a few examples for Alco's

1. EBTM found to be out of calibration
2. Witnesses who said they saw something not turning up.
3. CPS not warning Police officer witnesses.
4. Minor error in BT procedure
5. CPS lost case papers
6. Case papers not delivered to court

To name but a few. So, do you know what the reason was Gramps? No, thought not, it's far easier to make silly accusations instead.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Paul
In general, you may be correct, but in this case, I'd be very surprised if they hadn't sent an advice file to the CPS first. Obviously there is more to this than a video, and it may well not have been necessary.






Except that isn't correct. The CPS drop charges for all sorts of reasons, a few examples for Alco's

1. EBTM found to be out of calibration
2. Witnesses who said they saw something not turning up.
3. CPS not warning Police officer witnesses.
4. Minor error in BT procedure
5. CPS lost case papers
6. Case papers not delivered to court

To name but a few. So, do you know what the reason was Gramps? No, thought not, it's far easier to make silly accusations instead.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I'm not an apologist for the police - the civil case will no doubt throw some interesting light on the incident.
 
Prime viewing hours TV slot would seem to indicate that it's more than a few 'Internet Warriors' who have serious concerns!
 
Much as I'm with the aims of your argument guys .... That program is made by bigoted sales spin doctors... cah spit!

I mean could they not have chosen a more balanced headline and view of the topic ffs... poo stirrers they are! :mad:

Programs like that are why we have such division, its why Bernie is accusing people as suspects, its been brainwashed in over decades of hearing 'other peoples' opinions repeated again and again.

Stop watching those channels!


Bernie174 said:
In general these posts follow the same pattern, I simply used this particular case, but what I am trying to get over to you applies to everyone of these subjects.

Something happens, and a video or news article is produced. Based on that alone, which is always lacking in all of the facts, the usual suspects attack police and make what amounts to libelous comment.
In some cases thats all that is given to the public, and it ends with the usual suspects feeling certain their prejudices have been validated.
In a few cases, the real facts are presented to a court, all of the facts are heard by a Jury/Magistrate and the officers are more often than not acquitted.

So, what should be learned from that? Well, firstly forming an opinion on limited information, hearsay, videos from Youtube and press reports is a very precarious thing to do. Secondly, those that are apt to leap on the Police are always wrong are hypocritical in doing so. They expect to have a presumption of innocence, yet it's just dandy to accuse Police (or whatever other hate group they detest this week) of wrongdoing with no reliable evidence.
Click to expand...

Talk about accusation Bernie. ...what am I or them again? a 'usual suspect', we 'attack the police' get threatened by you on the cuff, and yet we're prejudiced did you say? ...and we're always certain we've been validated are we, unlike the officers who are nearly always right did you guess?

So your saying I shouldn't form an opinion like you just did, and that if I do all always be wrong and hypocritical because its only the police that can accuse people of whether they are innocent or not with no reliable evidence.
;)
 
Last edited:
Forbiddenbiker said:
Much as I'm with the aims of your argument guys .... That program is made by bigoted sales spin doctors... cah spit!

I mean could they not have chosen a more balanced headline and view of the topic ffs... poo stirrers they are! :mad:

Programs like that are why we have such division, its why Bernie is accusing people as suspects, its been brainwashed in over decades of hearing 'other peoples' opinions repeated again and again.

Stop watching those channels!
Click to expand...

Thought the programme was quite balanced myself ... indicating that there are concerns over a minority of police officers who think that the uniform is a licence to do whatever they want, whilst the majority are doing a good job under difficult circumstances.

It's when you get people who stoutly defend the police under any circumstances that the 'brainwashing' is noticeable!
 
This is complicated. I think that the problems are much deeper than most people realise and I don't think that ordinary, front line police officers actually know what sometimes goes on. And of course, that includes retired police officers.

Personally, I've had a couple of bad experiences with aggressive, rude and pig ignorant police officers who seem to think that they know everything and that they can interpret, or invent, law to suit themselves. But, in my experience these people are very much the exception, most are the exact opposite. I strongly support 'ordinary' police officers.

But I do have experience of serious misconduct by very senior police officers. I can't go into details but I am actively fighting a police force right now. They have 'interpreted' events in a way that entirely suits them and which is totally contradicted by their own forensic crime scene evidence. Other, vital forensic evidence has not been disclosed. A Superintendent has produced a written statement that can easily be proved wrong in Court, but doing so will cost an unbelievable amount of money, and that money will be lost unless I can PROVE that this has been done for malicious reasons. And this person has the full support of someone far more senior.

What can be done in this situation? Well, the obvious thing to do is to make a formal complaint. But that complaint has to go to the police force that caused the problem in the first place, the IPCC won't investigate it themselves. The complaint is then 'investigated' internally, and the result is a foregone conclusion.

The next stage is to complain about the investigation, to the IPCC. But the IPCC can only investigate the process, not the result of that process, so unless they can find serious flaws in the actual process - and they won't - their hands are tied.

Local MP's won't help, why should they? As far as they are concerned, the proper process is to complain to the IPCC, and if that has got nowhere then it seems to them that due process has been followed and that the victim is just someone who doesn't accept that the police have acted properly. That leaves just the Courts, which is incredibly expensive. If the police win, they get an award of costs, but if they lose then they are protected against costs (unless, as I said earlier, malice can be proved) which is virtually impossible.

THIS is the problem - the cover ups, lies and skullduggery that is carried out at or near the top, and which is done in OUR name.

Obviously, I only know about this case, the case that this thread is about is very different and I don't know anymore than anyone else who has seen this video, but it seems to me that with that case, even if the police officer in the video has behaved badly, at least someone above him has dealt with it. But I can't help wondering what might have happened if that video hadn't been all over the internet...
 
Bernie174 said:
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.

So why not just do that then ?


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.
Click to expand...

Really ? no stepping over the line you say, so putting words in the guys mouth "you have just told me you had 2 drinks" is not stepping over the line, because in my book that's blatant lying, no where in that part of the conversation did the guy say he had 2 drinks, or am I missing something, if so please enlighten me, to the contrary he quite clearly says he had tea, then the copper go's on to say "that's you blue Mercedes down there" so why not just take him to it then and see if he had the keys in his possession ?

Bernie it seems to me you are saying that it was alright for him to be nicked for failing to provide a breath specimen, because the means justifies the end, well it doesn't, and this is the very reason the police are being portrayed in a bad light
 
"Away" ... "Away with that" are the first words spoken to the photographer by the police.
Nothing about a warning of causing an obstruction or being behind some cordon or anything else ... "Away with that" is what it all started off with, "that", of course, being the camera.
Everything else, IMO, was a response to non-conformity.
 
Garry Edwards said:
This is complicated. I think that the problems are much deeper than most people realise and I don't think that ordinary, front line police officers actually know what sometimes goes on. And of course, that includes retired police officers.

Personally, I've had a couple of bad experiences with aggressive, rude and pig ignorant police officers who seem to think that they know everything and that they can interpret, or invent, law to suit themselves. But, in my experience these people are very much the exception, most are the exact opposite. I strongly support 'ordinary' police officers.

But I do have experience of serious misconduct by very senior police officers. I can't go into details but I am actively fighting a police force right now. They have 'interpreted' events in a way that entirely suits them and which is totally contradicted by their own forensic crime scene evidence. Other, vital forensic evidence has not been disclosed. A Superintendent has produced a written statement that can easily be proved wrong in Court, but doing so will cost an unbelievable amount of money, and that money will be lost unless I can PROVE that this has been done for malicious reasons. And this person has the full support of someone far more senior.

What can be done in this situation? Well, the obvious thing to do is to make a formal complaint. But that complaint has to go to the police force that caused the problem in the first place, the IPCC won't investigate it themselves. The complaint is then 'investigated' internally, and the result is a foregone conclusion.

The next stage is to complain about the investigation, to the IPCC. But the IPCC can only investigate the process, not the result of that process, so unless they can find serious flaws in the actual process - and they won't - their hands are tied.

Local MP's won't help, why should they? As far as they are concerned, the proper process is to complain to the IPCC, and if that has got nowhere then it seems to them that due process has been followed and that the victim is just someone who doesn't accept that the police have acted properly. That leaves just the Courts, which is incredibly expensive. If the police win, they get an award of costs, but if they lose then they are protected against costs (unless, as I said earlier, malice can be proved) which is virtually impossible.

THIS is the problem - the cover ups, lies and skullduggery that is carried out at or near the top, and which is done in OUR name.

Obviously, I only know about this case, the case that this thread is about is very different and I don't know anymore than anyone else who has seen this video, but it seems to me that with that case, even if the police officer in the video has behaved badly, at least someone above him has dealt with it. But I can't help wondering what might have happened if that video hadn't been all over the internet...
Click to expand...


Yes exactly, without it, would our/everyones individual cases have ever been believed?
Its Youtube videos that mainly trigged the knowledge that then instigated many of our officers into now wearing chest cameras I'd suggest.

The thing to remember nowadays I tell myself, is that mostly it is the corporations and alike that run our economy and is direction, not our government. From stock trade banking ten times UK product turnover, to international shipping law avoiding treaties to smaller yet still massive companies like Capita, Atos, Tribal and GFS or Serco, which run huge sections of our public services. Is a very different view of problems from their perspective because they see our government and our rules as a template for their plans and as a system they can adjust and tune for whatever needs they have. The scale of influence far exceeds our needs being heard by our government, their hands are tied! Our normal democracy has little or no effect if 'they' don't agree, or maybe even, allow.

From. democracymatters.org;
"Big businesses has long gone beyond lobbying to become part of machinery of government. Large companies even have ‘ministerial buddies’ to create privileged access. The Government, regulators and business also coordinate policies through myriad bodies such as the International Regulatory Strategy Group (IRSG), the Defence Growth Partnership (DGP) and other forums on which consumers, staff or other stakeholders are rarely represented. Foreign Office officials can even be hired to sell any dodgy product, such as fake useless bomb detectors. The sheer scale of business involvement in the state means that corporations have become “governing institutions”, as described by Professor Steven Wilks in The Political Power of the Business Corporation (2013)."

----

You only have to look at the effects of the new - Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.
to discover how powerful that effect is, an act ask for by us to help fair democracy during election year, yet turns out its designed to play firmly into the hands of the big money players! ... If I was cynical Id think, especially after discussing this with a Labour secretary a few days ago, most MP's are also brainwashed by their own efforts in worship to the corporations, the power of huge turnover figures and the weight in trade that partnership commands has blinded the majority, year in year out for decades.

They'll have our Police force too, doing it all their way but only for them, if we don't pay attention.
 
Last edited:
Adam

There's a vast difference in having an uninformed opinion, and stating things as fact, that have not been tested.
So as a simple example, what you have claimed in some points you've made isn't necessarily fact, it's simply opinion, yet you have stated it, as fact.
Take your "Ways & Means Act" statements, yes, of course it exists, although probably not with the same intention as you suggest in most cases. In some, and I'd say very very few, it probably is. In this particular case, not it isn't, they have gone for the most difficult opinion, which is the opposite of what the ways and means thing is about.

Going onto more general points, no one on here has any idea what Police officers saw, or smelt, or may have knbown about the chap. Yet you feel qualified to pass not just opinion but judgment. Now, if it were you video'd doing something and it alone showed you in a way thatwithout context made you perhaps look bad, you'd be screaming for the same thing I am saying the Police should have, judgement by evidence, not judgment by a narrow lens angle.
 
My opinion is that the officer in question was hacked off and decided to come up with an excuse to bully this guy out of the way. The guy in question taking the video was more than happy to stand his ground and get himself arrested as it would help his cause. A cause I agree with by the way just to add perspective to my opinion.

Who is right/wrong, in my opinion the officer is, it appears clear he knows he is, which is why he is passing on the arrest to others. He also clearly lies about what has been said. He is, in my opinion, an individual unsuited to the police force as he doesn't know right from wrong.

I know several people who have been involved in this protest, and believe them when they say the policing is very heavy handed. I also happen to know a few police officers so I have some sympathy for them as people, we can all get wound up, it's just they can't allow themselves to be.
 
Bernie174 said:
Adam

There's a vast difference in having an uninformed opinion, and stating things as fact, that have not been tested.
So as a simple example, what you have claimed in some points you've made isn't necessarily fact, it's simply opinion, yet you have stated it, as fact.
Take your "Ways & Means Act" statements, yes, of course it exists, although probably not with the same intention as you suggest in most cases. In some, and I'd say very very few, it probably is. In this particular case, not it isn't, they have gone for the most difficult opinion, which is the opposite of what the ways and means thing is about.

Going onto more general points, no one on here has any idea what Police officers saw, or smelt, or may have knbown about the chap. Yet you feel qualified to pass not just opinion but judgment. Now, if it were you video'd doing something and it alone showed you in a way thatwithout context made you perhaps look bad, you'd be screaming for the same thing I am saying the Police should have, judgement by evidence, not judgment by a narrow lens angle.
Click to expand...

I do wish you'd stop pointing out real obvious stuff that applies equally to yourself Bernie. ;)

Sixteen
 
Last edited:
ictus said:
My opinion is that the officer in question was hacked off and decided to come up with an excuse to bully this guy out of the way. The guy in question taking the video was more than happy to stand his ground and get himself arrested as it would help his cause. A cause I agree with by the way just to add perspective to my opinion.

Who is right/wrong, in my opinion the officer is, it appears clear he knows he is, which is why he is passing on the arrest to others. He also clearly lies about what has been said. He is, in my opinion, an individual unsuited to the police force as he doesn't know right from wrong.

I know several people who have been involved in this protest, and believe them when they say the policing is very heavy handed. I also happen to know a few police officers so I have some sympathy for them as people, we can all get wound up, it's just they can't allow themselves to be.
Click to expand...

Exactly and I quite agree.

Fifteen
 
Bernie174 said:
Going onto more general points, no one on here has any idea what Police officers saw, or smelt, or may have knbown about the chap. Yet you feel qualified to pass not just opinion but judgment. Now, if it were you video'd doing something and it alone showed you in a way thatwithout context made you perhaps look bad, you'd be screaming for the same thing I am saying the Police should have, judgement by evidence, not judgment by a narrow lens angle.
Click to expand...

That
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top