View Full Version : Can a off duty policeman prosecute?
After a couple of recent events personally, my appreciation and respect of the police is diminishing seriously rapidly. It would appear to me once a line has been taken by the police, they will continue that line and 'work hard' to obtain a conviction without the need for real evidence and without listening* to the accused person at all regardless of circumstance and evidence to the contrary for the charge they are being accused. It would seem if there is a dispute between two people, who ever gets to report it to the police first 'wins'.
*I say listening as what it really is, is letting you blabber on to deaf ears, and negate a damn thing you've said, disregard any circumstance of the events and quite simply take the reporting persons word as the truth regardless of lack of evidence.
I have little faith in the justice system or the police in dealing with 'minor' 'alleged' crimes honestly and most importantly fairly. How can someone be arrested for something purely on the word of another person. Surely the minimum they should do is 'interview' or just plain talk before arresting someone, locking them up in the cell for half the night, treated as a criminal with fingerprints, mug shots and DNA swabs before you have even been able to say a thing? Bloody disgusted.
Milky Bar Kid
17-06-10, 11:13 AM
Guys, right, I understand that some cops are t.wats. They are. Like in every line of society, there are people in the group who are only interested in what they think and not willing to listen to others, etc etc.
But seriously, us lot on here, we are obviously some of the good guys. We are continually dishing out advice on things and trying to explain why a certain course of action has been taken, why do you continually slate us? If we were the cops who needed slating, we wouldn't be on here dishing out advice!
Perhaps we should stop dishing out advice? Because it works both way. Stig you go on about the cops that dealt with you having deaf ears, well a lot of the times you lot on here have deaf ears when we try and explain things.
We have all agreed that from what we have read this cop that approach Segs was a knob. But as for arguing about the law, WE DON'T WRITE IT!!! Go and have a pop at the law makers!
yorkie_chris
17-06-10, 11:14 AM
MBK most of the time when people have a go at the police on here, they are having a go at the system as a whole and its failings.
The police are the customer-facing side of that, so obviously they catch the stick. It's not personal!
Milky Bar Kid
17-06-10, 11:17 AM
MBK most of the time when people have a go at the police on here, they are having a go at the system as a whole and its failings.
The police are the customer-facing side of that, so obviously they catch the stick. It's not personal!
I know but it gets a bit wearing when almost every thread we offer advice about these things turns into a chance for everyone and their granny to remember that time in 'Nam that the Police screwed them!!
Guys, right, I understand that some cops are t.wats. They are. Like in every line of society, there are people in the group who are only interested in what they think and not willing to listen to others, etc etc.
But seriously, us lot on here, we are obviously some of the good guys. We are continually dishing out advice on things and trying to explain why a certain course of action has been taken, why do you continually slate us? If we were the cops who needed slating, we wouldn't be on here dishing out advice!
Perhaps we should stop dishing out advice? Because it works both way. Stig you go on about the cops that dealt with you having deaf ears, well a lot of the times you lot on here have deaf ears when we try and explain things.
We have all agreed that from what we have read this cop that approach Segs was a knob. But as for arguing about the law, WE DON'T WRITE IT!!! Go and have a pop at the law makers!
Don't take it as a personal attack on yourself because it quite obviously isn't.
Police do not write the law, but they are the ones who are supposed to administer it. It would be nice if it were administered fairly. I am griping because I have had two seriously bad accounts with the police in a very short space of time. I'm sure if you had a bad account of a particular dealer whilst your bike was in for some work, you'd be more than ready to let all and sundry on here know about it. This is no different. I am well aware of the help and advice you guys have given, I am sure it is appreciated by many. Don't get automatically defensive as though every slate of the police is a personal attack. It isn't. I have friends who are in the police. I like them, that is why they are my friend. But does not detract from the experiences I have recently had with the police.
Two separate incidents involving two different people with different circumstances and both times the whole escapade from first being contacted by the police, how the police treated and spoke, and the eventual outcome is appalling. I am enraged by it and venting. I feel justified to do so.
yorkie_chris
17-06-10, 11:26 AM
TBH it's a fairly natural line for any conversation like this to lead to the attitude of police in general.
With regards the post above, I would agree we have seen a lot more negative than positive aspects of policing as of late and can understand the point of view. I can also stretch to the logic that a few nuggets are bringing down the reputation of your whole profession.
If this fact is wearing on you, I don't see there's a lot you can do about it other than gently reminding people that the idiots are in the minority.
After a couple of recent events personally, my appreciation and respect of the police is diminishing seriously rapidly. It would appear to me once a line has been taken by the police, they will continue that line and 'work hard' to obtain a conviction without the need for real evidence and without listening* to the accused person at all regardless of circumstance and evidence to the contrary for the charge they are being accused. It would seem if there is a dispute between two people, who ever gets to report it to the police first 'wins'.
*I say listening as what it really is, is letting you blabber on to deaf ears, and negate a damn thing you've said, disregard any circumstance of the events and quite simply take the reporting persons word as the truth regardless of lack of evidence.
I have little faith in the justice system or the police in dealing with 'minor' 'alleged' crimes honestly and most importantly fairly. How can someone be arrested for something purely on the word of another person. Surely the minimum they should do is 'interview' or just plain talk before arresting someone, locking them up in the cell for half the night, treated as a criminal with fingerprints, mug shots and DNA swabs before you have even been able to say a thing? Bloody disgusted.
i'll add to the above with a little story of my own. i have two sons who are for better words 'geeks' one of them was picked on (because his mum is severely disabled) by one of the 'mob' round the corner so my son got a hold of him and knocked ten barrels out of him. upshot was i got stones thrown at my windows and my door booted at leist 3 times a week for about 3 years. when it started happening i phoned the police who come out and said 'thats terrible' yada yada but then said there is nothing we can do unless you have proof. ok i said when i see them outside (large group of about 10 at a time) i'll give you a phone so you can come and catch them. ok they said 'you do that' upsot was that everytime i phoned the plod they got later and later responding, to the point that sometimes they would appear 3 days later.
i found out who was doing it and told the police who it was and they still insisted that they could do nothing.
ooohhh forgot to add at one point when the plod arrived it was so late in the evening that i lost my rag at them so they were going to 'take me down the cells'. trouble is i only raised my voice a little and i mean a little as i can sound like a fog horn when i like.
so what do i think of the plod round here.... well err lets just say i wouldn't waste my pizz on them and quite happily walk on by.
in the end i had to 'deal with it' myself and happily it worked.
Seeing as how you've replied with comments re Section 5 Public Order Act, perhaps you'd like to reply informing everyone what offence you've just committed here.
I think you'll find the officer has to give me a warning that if I do it again he will then arrest me under sec 5 POA 1986 - I'm pretty sure an arrest can't be made on verbal at the first pop. Offence or not, he'd still get told
Oh. Well that's good to know, as I wouldnt of taken him seriosuly unless in his outfit and squad car!
I wouldn't anyway. Anyone coming over that aggressive out of uniform gets treated equally as aggressive regardless of a warrant card. As soon as they lose it they revert to being just another member of the public suffering from road rage as far as I'm concerned.
If they want respect, they have to earn it - getting in my face and being aggressive does not endear them to me, it just makes me want to belittle them and turn it round on them.
grh1904
17-06-10, 04:02 PM
I think you'll find the officer has to give me a warning that if I do it again he will then arrest me under sec 5 POA 1986 - I'm pretty sure an arrest can't be made on verbal at the first pop. Offence or not, he'd still get told
Nope, it changed a few years back (2005), once you shout like that in public the offence is made out.
What does concern me is all those people on here who'd want to "give as good as they get".
All CID and other similar departments go around in plain clothes all the time, so if an officer came up to you & showed a warrant card how are you to know (unless they tell you) whether they are off duty but feel the need to act, or, whether they are on duty.
In 9 years I've only ever had to put myself "on duty" when officially on a rest day & it was in the neighbouring force area. All I did was show my warrant card & identified myself as a Polis. Okay it was a different situation (2 smack head types {male & female} trying to nick a couple of pairs of trainers from sports soccer or somewhere like that). Staff & security got hold of them & there were a lot of verbals etc, at which point security chap starts punching in the face the bloke, when the female tries to intervene she gets a clenched fist in the side of her head - totally out of order from the security chappie & I felt the need to intervene & calm it all down. Stayed until local uniforms turn up & told them what I had seen & was later asked to provide a statement.
I've also sensed the frustration of my fellow cops on here when they saw that most cops are good etc & those that have just given us a bashing say "oh it's not personal................" and all the other anti-police comments that come out.
Why is it just our profession?? - why not pick on teachers??
If one can "snap" and hit a 14yrs old with a dumbell then so can all of them. (waits to be shot down in flames..................................)
The point is we don't.
Nor do we say burn all doctors every time one of them kills a patient or could have done something such as in the baby P case.
Perhaps we should brand all Priests & Scout masters as paedo's - just to be on the safe side.
NO????? - is it because that it's only a very very small minority that are the rotten apples & the vast majority are good, decent people trying to make a difference within their community.........................?
Guys, right, I understand that some cops are t.wats. They are. Like in every line of society, there are people in the group who are only interested in what they think and not willing to listen to others, etc etc.
But seriously, us lot on here, we are obviously some of the good guys. We are continually dishing out advice on things and trying to explain why a certain course of action has been taken, why do you continually slate us? If we were the cops who needed slating, we wouldn't be on here dishing out advice!
Perhaps we should stop dishing out advice? Because it works both way. Stig you go on about the cops that dealt with you having deaf ears, well a lot of the times you lot on here have deaf ears when we try and explain things.
We have all agreed that from what we have read this cop that approach Segs was a knob. But as for arguing about the law, WE DON'T WRITE IT!!! Go and have a pop at the law makers!
+ 1
were not all bad guys........
I've also sensed the frustration of my fellow cops on here when they saw that most cops are good etc & those that have just given us a bashing say "oh it's not personal................" and all the other anti-police comments that come out.
My comments are not directed at any of you personally. If it were I would say so.
Why is it just our profession?? - why not pick on teachers??
Because it is only your profession that can do this to members of the public and 'get away' with it. I have nothing against the police. We have to have them. Society can not be trusted and rules and regulations need to be enforced. Happy with that.
NO????? - is it because that it's only a very very small minority that are the rotten apples & the vast majority are good, decent people trying to make a difference within their community.........................?
I don't even think the bad experiences I have spoken about were dealt with by 'rotten apples' but I do think they handled it poorly and with disregard to the person/persons that were being arrested. It seemed quite obvious to me the only aim of both events were to get a conviction of the alleged crimes committed. The 'result' for the stats were more important than proper investigation and proper resolution.
Red Herring
17-06-10, 07:19 PM
My comments are not directed at any of you personally. If it were I would say so.
Because it is only your profession that can do this to members of the public and 'get away' with it. I have nothing against the police. We have to have them. Society can not be trusted and rules and regulations need to be enforced. Happy with that.
I don't even think the bad experiences I have spoken about were dealt with by 'rotten apples' but I do think they handled it poorly and with disregard to the person/persons that were being arrested. It seemed quite obvious to me the only aim of both events were to get a conviction of the alleged crimes committed. The 'result' for the stats were more important than proper investigation and proper resolution.
The police don't "get away with it" any more than teachers get away with failing pupils, doctors getting away with ill patients, or politicians get away with bad government. We are all accountable for what we do and despite the best efforts of the majority in all of those professions we don't always get it right.
I do believe we are all victims of the way you have demanded accountability and control of those professions. By you I don't mean you personally of course, I mean society but I think I can include you in society as readily as you include me every time you refer to the police. The way you have insisted on measuring everything and then judging on those measurements means that we have eventually come to regard only the things that can be measured as important, and if it's not a target we don't do it.
Police forces are measured on crime reduction and clear up rates. Despite what you say it makes no difference to us if someone is convicted (only the CPS get measured on conviction rate, which of course is why they will prosecute you for speeding which is a dead cert win, but not for a "proper crime" where the result may be in question) because once someone is charged that counts as a "detected" crime. That's why the police don't want to record crimes and if they do they want to arrest and charge someone.
Every copper I know knows it doesn't make sense. The saying that not everything of value can be measured, and not everything that can be measured has value, has never been so true, but you insist on going down this route so you will eventually get the policing and police service you deserve. Good policing requires common sense and responsible decision making, neither of which are rewarded under the current regime.
Reasonable stuff...
Stop being reasonable :D
How am I supposed to have a good rant and threaten to batter members of the public because they "deserve" it if you persist in taking a reasonable attitude to it all? :smt044
Red Herring
17-06-10, 07:38 PM
Sorry, I've been up since 04:00 this morning being horrible to people and for one reckless moment I thought I'd try and put things right.... Promise not to do it again....tonight.
The police don't "get away with it" any more than teachers get away with failing pupils, doctors getting away with ill patients, or politicians get away with bad government. We are all accountable for what we do and despite the best efforts of the majority in all of those professions we don't always get it right.
I do believe we are all victims of the way you have demanded accountability and control of those professions. By you I don't mean you personally of course, I mean society but I think I can include you in society as readily as you include me every time you refer to the police. The way you have insisted on measuring everything and then judging on those measurements means that we have eventually come to regard only the things that can be measured as important, and if it's not a target we don't do it.
Police forces are measured on crime reduction and clear up rates. Despite what you say it makes no difference to us if someone is convicted (only the CPS get measured on conviction rate, which of course is why they will prosecute you for speeding which is a dead cert win, but not for a "proper crime" where the result may be in question) because once someone is charged that counts as a "detected" crime. That's why the police don't want to record crimes and if they do they want to arrest and charge someone.
Every copper I know knows it doesn't make sense. The saying that not everything of value can be measured, and not everything that can be measured has value, has never been so true, but you insist on going down this route so you will eventually get the policing and police service you deserve. Good policing requires common sense and responsible decision making, neither of which are rewarded under the current regime.
Sorry to dismiss the rest of what you have written and only pick up the bit I have highlighted but that bit reflects the exact point I was trying to make. Following a record of an 'alleged' crime, 'they' want to follow it through to an arrest and a charge. I strongly feel that is what happened in the incidents I have eluded to. To the point in which the accused's version of events were practically dismissed without being listened too.
And it still seems to me that you ( I mean all the police members who have contributed to this thread) are still taking generalized comments regarding the police as a personal attack which is most definitely not the case. It is not surprising I think when someone has had a negative experience of the police, twice in close succession by two different police forces on totally separate issues and with different people involved, it is unsurprising they have a negative view of the police by the way they were 'processed'. I am not here to flame down every police officer I can and I am not tarring all of them with the same brush. But I am losing faith in the way certain police officers carry out their duties. I could go into details regarding the two events but for one I do not wish to hang out other peoples dirty laundry and do not wish to do mine either. I know that certain things the police officers said and did were unsympathetic and lies were told about how they could or could not carry out some of the things they did. The other person was so distressed by the whole event which ended up in no charge due to lack of evidence, a complaint is being drawn up and submitted. All things considered a rant on this thread and forum about my feelings is a good way to vent out that frustration and anger. I understand with you all being police officers your natural reaction is be defensive. But surely you must understand when people go through these experiences knowing an unjust course of action has been taken by those who are employed to investigate and resolve these issues and allegations, they are not going to overly impressed by the establishment.
I mean no offense to anyone of you who may have taken it. My opinion at this moment in time has not changed. Sorry
Biker Biggles
17-06-10, 08:40 PM
The police don't "get away with it" any more than teachers get away with failing pupils, doctors getting away with ill patients, or politicians get away with bad government. We are all accountable for what we do and despite the best efforts of the majority in all of those professions we don't always get it right.
I do believe we are all victims of the way you have demanded accountability and control of those professions. By you I don't mean you personally of course, I mean society but I think I can include you in society as readily as you include me every time you refer to the police. The way you have insisted on measuring everything and then judging on those measurements means that we have eventually come to regard only the things that can be measured as important, and if it's not a target we don't do it.
Police forces are measured on crime reduction and clear up rates. Despite what you say it makes no difference to us if someone is convicted (only the CPS get measured on conviction rate, which of course is why they will prosecute you for speeding which is a dead cert win, but not for a "proper crime" where the result may be in question) because once someone is charged that counts as a "detected" crime. That's why the police don't want to record crimes and if they do they want to arrest and charge someone.
Every copper I know knows it doesn't make sense. The saying that not everything of value can be measured, and not everything that can be measured has value, has never been so true, but you insist on going down this route so you will eventually get the policing and police service you deserve. Good policing requires common sense and responsible decision making, neither of which are rewarded under the current regime.
I vote this post of the week.:winner:
In a few lines you have summed up everything that is wrong with our once great country.The result is a dangerously demoralised police force(sorry I mean service:rolleyes:)and equally demoralised teachers medics social workers firefighters refuse disposal officers:D and every other occupation now subject to this insane "performance management" bullsh1t.
Lunatics running the asylum doesnt begin to describe the damage done.
Nor do we say burn all doctors every time one of them kills a patient or could have done something such as in the baby P case.
Reminds me of the time an angry mob protesting about Paedophiles being housed in their local area trashed a Paediatricians!
Or was that just an urban myth? I'm sure I saw it on the news years ago... No accounting for morons on a crusade! ( in or out of uniforms ;) ).
I guess the difference with Police officers is that people only tend to encounter them in negative circumstances, so it's harder to look back and balance the negative experiences with positive ones.
I've been guilty of slaggin off "Ra Polis" on here, as I have come across some real "characters", but I also know a Police sergeant i would trust my life with, and a Police constable with similar, good, honest character.
...I just bowed my head, took it all in and did my sadist of faces...
THAT'S where you went wrong. If you'd have put on a masochist face and taken a bit of a spanking it would all have been dealt with there and then.
Maybe not in front of the kids though. ;)
Unfortunately, most people's interaction with Police Officers is probably in relation to something negative - it's a fact of the job. Unfortunately, some peoples expectations of what the police do is unrealistic. Sometimes the police can make a mountain out of a molehill, but it's usually because they have to do it - it's their job!
At the end of the day, we're only human too, not some automated robot, and we do have bad days just like everyone else! Go easy on us on here, and maybe one day we'll have a pro-police thread for a change! ;)
Sid Squid
18-06-10, 08:00 AM
Why is it just our profession?? - why not pick on teachers?
I take your point, but it's not a good parallel - most professions don't, (generally), have a power over us which they could abuse.
It's not been the same since they stopped us using the cane ;(
i prob would have just told him to do one and i def wouldnt have hung around for the local plod to arrive.
I have learnt from experience however, that when they (police officers in general) are on duty, you cannot win an argument even if you know they are wrong so its best to just leave them be if poss.
Milky Bar Kid
18-06-10, 01:26 PM
It's not been the same since they stopped us using the cane ;(
Now that is a point that gives something to think about!
Seggons
18-06-10, 08:11 PM
Just a small update and it seems karma has played a small role. I've just been back to the same fuel station to fill up the bike after the ride I had tonight. The girl at the counter recognised me and as I was paying she informed me that he got a bollocking because he never informed them of what he was doing there. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me but I'm happy that someone give him a bollocking. :D
Bollocking bollocking bollocking. I'll give him a bollocking, and on this forum I can say bollocking. ******** bollocking bollock. The bollock king.
Too right though. He may be a human being, but he could be a human doing or rather a human cuddling or squeezing or just waving. Piggymonkeypiggyluvinpiggykarmalovinpiggyluvuseggo nsumonkeylover.
I need to come on another Midlands rideout to rid my dirty chicken strips.
I have only got to page ten, but this section 59 bolox seems very underhand to me.
I had a visit from a copper who said I had been reported overtaking, speeding, causing oncoming traffic to brake blah blah. Apparently I had been reported by an off duty (if there is such a thing) officer.
The overtake was admittedly made about 100 yards from a nsl, but still in a forty limit (I probably accelerated up to about 70 but was in the nsl at this point, and then eased off to 60mph once back in lane). Car in front is driving like a complete d!ck, tailgating the car in front of it, swerving around and locking its wheels so I decided to get round them and out his way. Car I'm in is very rapid, so even though there were cars coming in the other direction it was a safe overtake, there was plenty of room, was back on the right side of carriageway a good few hundred yards before I passed the oncoming traffic.
A couple of weeks later a uniformed officer turns up at my house asking if I was driving the car when the incident happened, gave me a verbal warning and told me if I was reported within a year that I will get the book thrown at me. Now, I didn't recieve any paperwork, or sign anything and have nothing to tell me the date of the incident, so how the hell do I know when a year has passed from the alledged offence.
Personally, I think that if the police have the powers to prosecute, or conviscate and crush a vehicle under this section 59 ruling, they should have the decency to issue the correct paperwork with the relevant details on it.
And another thing, whats to stop someone fabricating a story to get someone they don't like into trouble this way and then do it again a couple of months down the line and end up with an innocent victim getting their car crushed or prosecuted for something they haven't done, unlikely, I know, but still possible.
yorkie_chris
19-06-10, 08:40 AM
They don't crush your car, they steal it and then extort £100+ from you if you want it back.
So this section 59 BS is not a warning, so no "I don't accept this warning, f*** off and talk to the CPS" then?
P.S out of a forum of a few hundred, 5 or so people have had this legislation misused against them. A worrying trend!
Specialone
19-06-10, 08:46 AM
Lets not beat around the bush here, these so called off duty cops or on duty cops, 99% of the time if they have evidence to do something they will, when they dont its usually because they cant, so they result to scare tactics, just take no notice, if he could have done something he would have.
They get pi55ed at you when they see you doing stuff while off duty and wanna do something just to make a point, but im sure while off duty they all adhere to the law fully, hence why you stand out.
BTW im pro police as my bro was one for 30 years.
Specialone
19-06-10, 08:48 AM
Bollocking bollocking bollocking. I'll give him a bollocking, and on this forum I can say bollocking. ******** bollocking bollock. The bollock king.
Too right though. He may be a human being, but he could be a human doing or rather a human cuddling or squeezing or just waving. Piggymonkeypiggyluvinpiggykarmalovinpiggyluvuseggo nsumonkeylover.
I need to come on another Midlands rideout to rid my dirty chicken strips.
Drunken post???:)
And another thing, whats to stop someone fabricating a story to get someone they don't like into trouble this way and then do it again a couple of months down the line and end up with an innocent victim getting their car crushed or prosecuted for something they haven't done, unlikely, I know, but still possible.
Unlikely but happens. One of the two unfortunate circumstances I have just experienced, this has happened. Nothing to do with motoring but still the same.
A third party has made an allegation which is completely and totally untrue. The police have reacted on this information and made an arrest (with no evidence other that the 3rd parties say so). Arrested, taken to the police station, locked in a cell, DNA'd, fingerprinted and all the rest. Eventually give a recorded statement and finally released without charge after spending 6 hours at the police station, most of the time locked up in a cell wondering what the hell is going on. But a warning that if another allegation is made another arrest will follow. So now this person carries on with life waiting for a knock at the door by the police to be arrested again because the 3rd party has made another untrue allegation.
A complaint registered to the IPCC. This can not be just following protocol, following the rules. It would appear there is no protection for this person in any way shape or form. This person is a sitting target for the 3rd party any time they feel like . The police should have investigated and confirmed there was sufficient evidence before making an arrest. They didn't because there wasn't any. There should never have been an arrest in the first place, let alone waiting to be arrested again.
They don't crush your car, they steal it and then extort £100+ from you if you want it back.
So this section 59 BS is not a warning, so no "I don't accept this warning, f*** off and talk to the CPS" then?
P.S out of a forum of a few hundred, 5 or so people have had this legislation misused against them. A worrying trend!
Yep, and worse still, anyone can report you for anti social driving and what might seem like anti social driving to a flat cap wearing coffin dodger might be perfectly acceptable to everyone else.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought in this country, where we pay our taxes for services like the police force, that has it's own traffic police department, that it is this traffic police department that should be policing our roads, and not palming it off on civilians that are not qualified for the task.
Specialone
19-06-10, 01:21 PM
Yeah.
Thought so lol :p
So this section 59 BS is not a warning, so no "I don't accept this warning, f*** off and talk to the CPS" then?
I'm increasingly disillusioned by those forces that seem to use Section 59s as a tool to scare folk into toeing their particular line. If I had any copper attempt to hand one down to me I'd be very inclined to ask him why he isn't actually charging me with an offence and then insist in speaking to his senior officer for him to explain the same.
If I've commited an offence then I'll put my hands up to it and take my chances in a court of law, where I'll be dealt with by magistrates who will hear both sides of the story and make their own minds up. If I feel I'm not guilty of the offence, I don't want a copper at the roadside using a "tool", as it's been described, to scare me into behaving when I've done no wrong - charge me with the bloody offence, or STFU. That Sec 59 affects everything I do for the next year... and that's not how British justice works. Like I said in earlier posts, it's not all coppers who do this, just a few lazy ones and those with grudges of some kind, basically the type of people who don't deserve to wear the uniform anyway.
Perhaps if there were league tables for section 59s then senior officers would be able to decide if they were being handed out willy-nilly or whether the coppers were using their heads. It would be interesting to see how many Sec 59s are actually backed up by the prosecutions that are supposed to follow too - I'll bet that figure is pitifully low.
As anyone who reads my posts will know, I am as diametrically opposed to the tree-hugging, lefty, soap-dodging liberals as it is possible to get, but when something like this impinges on my civil liberties then I will make my voice heard.
It makes me wonder what happened to the rights British citizens were granted by King John at the signing of the Magna Carta (which forms the basis of the British constitution and law) in particular these ones pertaining to judicial rights:
Clause 24 states that crown officials (such as sheriffs) may not try a crime in place of a judge.
Clause 29 guarantees a right to due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process).
Red Herring
20-06-10, 09:37 PM
Perhaps if there were league tables for section 59s then senior officers would be able to decide if they were being handed out willy-nilly or whether the coppers were using their heads. It would be interesting to see how many Sec 59s are actually backed up by the prosecutions that are supposed to follow too - I'll bet that figure is pitifully low.
You'd win that bet hands down. For various reasons the issue of Sect 59 warnings, or more specifically the way they were then recorded, was causing me quite a few problems at work and it prompted me to look into the circumstances of how quite a few were issued. I didn't find a single one that was supported by sufficient evidence to actually carry out a prosecution.
yorkie_chris
20-06-10, 10:13 PM
So consider the situation, if they decided to give a second sec 59 and seize your bike, what do you do then?
Also which bike would they seize? Is the warning against you, or against one particular bike and rider combo?
Red Herring
21-06-10, 07:47 AM
There is nothing to stop you making a complaint against the police if you think they have misused their powers. As I think I said earlier Sect 59 is often used against our younger more unruly population and as a result they also tend to be the less well informed. This means that the police have been able to get away with perhaps more than they really ought to have and the danger is that if they do something wrong for long enough it becomes general practice.
Personally I would take a similar line to that advocated by Lozzo (as just for once it doesn't involve any physical violence) and refuse to accept any warning, insisting that they evidence what they are doing and prosecute me if they feel that strongly about it. This route isn't guaranteed to work as they don't need your permission to warn you, but the officer does need a reasonable belief that you have committed one of the specified offences and making it clear that you will have that belief tested might cause them to think again, or at least write their pocket book up properly...
On the second instance where they may be considering seizure then just about every force I've had any dealings with has a presumption on prosecution for the substantive offence so that should be happening anyhow. Don't however make the assumption that if the prosecution fails you will get compensation for the seizure and any inconvenience caused.
With regard to the actual warning it is against both the rider/driver and the vehicle. If you get a warning on one bike, then get caught a second time on another, that bike is up for seizure. Likewise if there is a "pool" bike and it's being used by various scrotes to terrorize the village then that will get taken on the second warning, regardless of who is riding it. (and before anyone says the obvious yes there are some exceptions to the second scenario that allow for the bike changing ownership).
You'd win that bet hands down. For various reasons the issue of Sect 59 warnings, or more specifically the way they were then recorded, was causing me quite a few problems at work and it prompted me to look into the circumstances of how quite a few were issued. I didn't find a single one that was supported by sufficient evidence to actually carry out a prosecution.
Was disciplinary action taken against the officers who'd bent the rules? Were the Section 59s they'd issued cancelled?
yorkie_chris
21-06-10, 07:11 PM
or at least write their pocket book up properly...
Is that actually a good thing?
I've always thought in case of getting stopped for speeding it was best to give no clue that you've got a clue, so there's more chance of them misrecording any evidence and giving you some room later?
Red Herring
21-06-10, 07:58 PM
Is that actually a good thing?
I've always thought in case of getting stopped for speeding it was best to give no clue that you've got a clue, so there's more chance of them misrecording any evidence and giving you some room later?
It's not a good thing if your guilty.... but I was working on the premise that we were innocent and talking about being given a sect 59 wrongly.
In reply to Lozzo's query they weren't disciplined as such, just re-educated, and yes the markers were taken off the vehicles concerned.
yorkie_chris
21-06-10, 08:12 PM
Why not a good thing if you're guilty?
Innocent or guilty makes no odds, any point which you or a brief can lay into is good whether you be guilty or wrongly accused.
Trying to get away with a crime and be acquitted of a crime are basically the same thing from that point of view!
In reply to Lozzo's query they weren't disciplined as such, just re-educated, and yes the markers were taken off the vehicles concerned.
Nice to know, thanks for responding.
davepreston
22-06-10, 12:08 AM
Unfortunately, most people's interaction with Police Officers is probably in relation to something negative - it's a fact of the job. Unfortunately, some peoples expectations of what the police do is unrealistic. Sometimes the police can make a mountain out of a molehill, but it's usually because they have to do it - it's their job!
At the end of the day, we're only human too, not some automated robot, and we do have bad days just like everyone else! Go easy on us on here, and maybe one day we'll have a pro-police thread for a change! ;)
first ive seen a few pro police threads on here so yea your not all bad lol
and i think you bring up a very valid point which i would like your (any plod) responce too
yes your human and yes you like everyone have bad days
but ive noticed quite allot of pold are becoming more and more desensitised to the real world and living more and more in a place where targets, numbers and force piorities are trying to do half the thinking for them, it seems to me that middle management and above dont trust the boots on the ground to make correct judgement calls (most prob scared of law suit and the like)
gone are the days of local community knowledge and gypsy's warnings
lets be honest more times than not a word from a cop used to sort out problems without having to dish out 59's ,tickets and offical paperwork
what was the problem with that
and just to clarify i us the term desenseitised in its truest form, lacking grounding in the norm due to over exposer to the worse end of the spectrum
i validate my above statements with my 29 years of living, working and socialising with far to many plod
timwilky
22-06-10, 07:26 AM
stuff
Only because your a plod brat and got away with it because your daddies boy.
Red Herring
22-06-10, 07:29 AM
Why not a good thing if you're guilty?
Innocent or guilty makes no odds, any point which you or a brief can lay into is good whether you be guilty or wrongly accused.
Trying to get away with a crime and be acquitted of a crime are basically the same thing from that point of view!
If you're guilty then the less evidence the officer has recorded the better your chance should you elect to challenge it. For this reason not appearing contentious when booked (but not necessarily making any admissions either) is a good move as the officer may be sloppy, issue you with a ticket and write the bare minimum in his book. This leaves you with at least a fighting chance of getting off on a technicality.
If on the other hand you argue with them and challenge what they say to you at the road side then I'll wager they will write war and peace in their book, make sure every angle is covered and generally leave you very little room to maneuver.
As a general rule never argue with an officer at the road side, but never make any admission either. Accepting a ticket is not an admission (although some officers will offer you a ticket if you "admit" the offence and threaten you with court if you don't).
yorkie_chris
22-06-10, 08:18 AM
I am more worried by comment earlier that you shouldn't expect a refund of the money extorted from you when your bike is stolen. It really is a way to apply a fine with no due process required!
Red Herring
23-06-10, 07:45 PM
If a vehicle is seized legitimately then the police don't have to refund any costs incurred. For the vehicle to be seized legitimately the officer simply has to be able to show that he held an honest belief that the offence had been committed. There is a subtle difference between the officer having an honestly held belief and you being found guilt in a court of law, so you could be found not guilty yet still not get the costs refunded.
In practice most forces will refund because the cost in terms of public confidence (as well demonstrated on here) for not doing so is to high, but just don't rely on it. Every case is treated on its merits.
Luckypants
23-06-10, 10:28 PM
For the vehicle to be seized legitimately the officer simply has to be able to show that he held an honest belief that the offence had been committed.
There seems to be far too many laws where this is the case. Surely everything where there is a penalty on the accused (and having your vehicle seized surely is) should carry a burden of proof? If it is the case that no charge is brought or the accused is found not guilty, then compensation for any financial loss should be paid. Jeez!
yorkie_chris
23-06-10, 10:32 PM
In practice most forces will refund because the cost in terms of public confidence (as well demonstrated on here) for not doing so is to high, but just don't rely on it. Every case is treated on its merits.
Outright hostility is above and beyond a lack of confidence :)
This whole "pay us or we crush your motor" is extortion. I cannot see any scenario where this is right.
Plus I know full well it doesn't cost £120 to "recover" a bike 2 miles. The c***s running these yards... well suffice to say I would not deign to relieve myself upon them if they were being consumed by a conflagration...
In a similar vein, I must admit I was somewhat bemused when the "Birmingham Six" were eventually released and they were awarded compensation........but had their "board and lodgings" deducted for being locked up for 16 years.
Salt, wound, rub-a-dub-dub.
Red Herring
24-06-10, 04:17 AM
Outright hostility is above and beyond a lack of confidence :)
This whole "pay us or we crush your motor" is extortion. I cannot see any scenario where this is right.
Plus I know full well it doesn't cost £120 to "recover" a bike 2 miles. The c***s running these yards... well suffice to say I would not deign to relieve myself upon them if they were being consumed by a conflagration...
I try to use fairy generic terms when I discuss such issues YC as they tend to apply to the majority of cases and individuals.
You are obviously entitled to describe your personal feelings but it does rather lessen your argument when you back them up with a somewhat narrow minded and misinformed statement. The purpose of the Sect 59 legislation is to remove vehicles that are being used antisocially from the system, which was one of the Publics top priorities for the police to address.
Vehicles that are in otherwise lawful use can be reclaimed, and the fee not only covers the cost of the scheme, but acts as a deterrent to the driver/rider involved, however the vast majority of the vehicles seized (I said seized, not warned) are piles of poo that were being used illegally and nobody, not even you, would want back in circulation. It's not theft, it's not extortion, it is the law, but yes part of it does get used inappropriately and those instances need addressing with reasoned argument, sound judgement and appropriate supervision. If you know of such an incident then did you bring it to the attention of someone who could put it right, or is your view based on the apparent tales of others.....
Why not keep your "outright hostility" towards the police for the football terraces or some arty farty peace march, least you'd be in the right company.
...piles of poo...
YC they'll never let your bike out of the pound! ;)
yorkie_chris
24-06-10, 08:44 AM
I try to use fairy generic terms when I discuss such issues YC as they tend to apply to the majority of cases and individuals.
You are obviously entitled to describe your personal feelings but it does rather lessen your argument when you back them up with a somewhat narrow minded and misinformed statement. The purpose of the Sect 59 legislation is to remove vehicles that are being used antisocially from the system, which was one of the Publics top priorities for the police to address.
Vehicles that are in otherwise lawful use can be reclaimed, and the fee not only covers the cost of the scheme, but acts as a deterrent to the driver/rider involved, however the vast majority of the vehicles seized (I said seized, not warned) are piles of poo that were being used illegally and nobody, not even you, would want back in circulation. It's not theft, it's not extortion, it is the law, but yes part of it does get used inappropriately and those instances need addressing with reasoned argument, sound judgement and appropriate supervision. If you know of such an incident then did you bring it to the attention of someone who could put it right, or is your view based on the apparent tales of others.....
Why not keep your "outright hostility" towards the police for the football terraces or some arty farty peace march, least you'd be in the right company.
Outright hostility towards a particular bit of legislation which I think is unjust and in itself illegal. Not the police as a whole... :rolleyes:
I know why it's there, and what it's used for, but IMO there should be some caveats in it to avoid misuse. Such as the police force in question being liable for any costs incurred when the person has committed no offence. And some manner of challenging it with the requirement for the due process which is entitled.
It's not right that any law exists with the possibility of punishment being applied without due process.
Red Herring
25-06-10, 05:21 AM
In principal I actually agree with you, but the reality is that just about every piece of legislation or power is open to abuse in some way or another. I was always taught to think of police powers and the law as tools in my chest that enable me to get the job done. A policeman's role is to maintain law and order (the Queens peace) and help society generally exist in peace and harmony....and the police should use such tools as is necessary to achieve this, not just use the tools because they are there to be used.
Unfortunately in recent years there has been a lot of pressure on the police to use certain tools more than others, and that's what happens when you get accountants and politicians involved in something they know nothing about.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.