View Full Version : Sorry, got to post this...
Specialone
03-02-14, 11:22 PM
This type of thing just puts back police /public relations by years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gxI4ToNKGQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
21QUEST
04-02-14, 12:09 AM
...and that's with a camera rolling.
I wonder if they all stuck together :rolleyes:
Matt-EUC
04-02-14, 12:11 AM
If you read the description below, the bloke filming just sounds like a c0ck. Being intentionally difficult in court just to sound clever, what an obnoxious, arrogant ****.
21QUEST
04-02-14, 12:21 AM
If you read the description below, the bloke filming just sounds like a c0ck. Being intentionally difficult in court just to sound clever, what an obnoxious, arrogant ****.
You watched the whole video and you are talking about some bloke sounding like a coc*?... you cannae be serious.
coc* like that possibly do more good helping bent coppers to possibly think(probably unlikely but one can live in hope) about how they treat the next person...who could possibly be your very self.
I get why you have written what you have but that's nothing compared to the bent c0cks on video.
tigersaw
04-02-14, 12:43 AM
He sounds a right **** to me too.
All he had to do, after being asked many times, was to take a breath test and then he could have gone home.
Unless he'd been drinking of course.
If indeed it was the morning and his breath did smell of alcohol and he had been witnessed arriving in his car that's one thing.
But the first copper clearly just invents the story and for that he should lose his job... and pension. He's bent!
C
BanannaMan
04-02-14, 06:16 AM
Hmmm... of course I live in a nazi police state but looks to me like he asked for it and he got it.
Police are dealing with an unpleasent situation trying to break up a protest. (right or wrong following orders)
1. He is across the Police line up close filming.
(which incites others)
2. He is asked to move behind the line but does not.
3. He has to be escorted away at which time....
4. The officer smells alcohol on his breath.
The copper is trying to clear the area. This barsteward is being a c0ck.
So when it's discovered he's been drinking, the (first) cop burnt him because he could, simples.
Had he been drink driving? Given his reponses and breath test refusal, without a doubt.
I seriously doubt this copper has any real habit of this, this bloke just picked the wrong time and place to act like a drunk c0ck.
What kind of outcome was he expecting with the Police?
Specialone
04-02-14, 06:29 AM
He sounds a right **** to me too.
All he had to do, after being asked many times, was to take a breath test and then he could have gone home.
Unless he'd been drinking of course.
Are you for real?
The bloke was being a pita granted, but tensions are high regarding this fracking issue, the guy filming was an appointed observer not a rent a swampy, the copper knew his name.
If I was in the street as a pedestrian I would take offence to a roadside breadth test too and I'd refuse under those circumstances, the copper had zero evidence, so what if the guy arrived in his car? How does the copper know that he didn't have a drink in the time since he parked up? (if at all).
Being an obnoxious git doesn't give corrupt police the right to invent offences against you.
BanannaMan
04-02-14, 07:10 AM
up
Being an obnoxious git doesn't give corrupt police the right to invent offences against you.
No but doing so at the wrong place and time almost gaurantees it. ;)
Seriously look at what else is going on.
Get up in the middle of a police scene being a drunken c0ck and see what happens.
What happened here would be routine in the US.
Except you can't argue or talk back to police here. (without grave consequences)
Still say he asked for it.
Red Herring
04-02-14, 08:42 AM
Not the best demonstration of police communication skills granted.
What I will contribute from personal experience is that there is a whole lot more information involved than may appear on the video. At events like this you generally very quickly get to know certain key players (and the "video man" is one of them) and you tend to work with, rather than against them, which is probably why the man with the camera was allowed out of the line and able to film the arrest of his colleague. It is also apparent from what is on the film that the officer knows him, knows his vehicle (he described it as a blue Mercedes) and the implication from what he was saying is that he saw him arrive in it earlier in the day.
Given those circumstances, and his suspicion that he had consumed alcohol (not helped I admit by him mishearing "I've had tea" as "I've had two") he does technically have a power to require a breath test.
(3) [...] if a [police] constable reasonably suspects that the person has been driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place while having alcohol or a drug in his body or while unfit to drive because of a drug, and still has alcohol or a drug in his body or is still under the influence of a drug.... " He can require a breath test.
Unfortunately from there, due largely to the officers communication style, things go rapidly downhill.
All in all a poor show but I would stop short of throwing corruption allegations around.
ClunkintheUK
04-02-14, 08:55 AM
I am normally rather suspicious of the "Evidence of police brutality/corruption" videos on youtube that start at the point of arrest. As RH says, I am sure there a lot more involved then is shown in the video.
CharleyFarley
04-02-14, 09:11 AM
I am sure there a lot more involved then is shown in the video.
I agree 100%........there's often 'more than meets the eye.....'
"Gas it w###a".........
dirtyred619
04-02-14, 09:45 AM
I was on a bus (a rare necessity) just over 2 weeks ago to go to the hospital. There was 3 of these protesters on it sat just next to me and so for 15 minutes I couldn't help but overhear the majority of their conversation. All I can say is they aren't just there to peacefully protest (they've been camped at the site for weeks and weeks) but are out to be as disruptive as possible and are certainly far from being straight laced.
Well lesson learned
When asked if you have had a drink, the response is No
Don't try and be a smart 'rse when the guy asking is under stress.
I cant understand the responses here. That copper was clearly taking the ****, coming up with some bull story to get the guy tangled up in a breath test procedure and divert attention from the protest.
Whether he was obnoxious or not, and from the part we saw I don't believe he started off that way, there is no excuse to invent stories and put words into his mouth.
The copper was a ****, pure and simple.
Steve_God
04-02-14, 10:36 AM
I cant understand the responses here. That copper was clearly taking the ****, coming up with some bull story to get the guy tangled up in a breath test procedure and divert attention from the protest.
Whether he was obnoxious or not, and from the part we saw I don't believe he started off that way, there is no excuse to invent stories and put words into his mouth.
The copper was a ****, pure and simple.
:winner:
While the guy recording it all was being a smart-ar5e, the first copper took it past the line of being reasonable.
The following coppers he passed him onto however, just followed procedure properly given the info that they had been informed of.
While I agree that he was in a heated situation, and may have mis-heard him, if it was that heated and the coppers' attention was needed elsewhere, then why was he spending so much time with the guy he already knew who he was...
Fallout
04-02-14, 10:42 AM
Look, if he did see him arrive in a car and he does smell drunk and he did mishear "I've had tea" for "I've had two" then there's not a lot wrong here. Yes the cop is an utter penis but assuming those are fact (which is impossible to disprove from the video), then there's nothing untoward here.
If he is known to them they more than likely clocked his motor turning up.
The push was out of order. Yes
If he had the sense he'd keept back to get a better shot of what's going on anyways
Specialone
04-02-14, 01:10 PM
Most of you seem to be missing the point about continuity of evidence, if the guy arrived in a car, parked up, then spent the whole time in the view of the copper who didn't see him consume any alcohol then legally this guy could've had a drink after parking up and the copper wouldnt have know about this, if at all he smelled of booze, then it's still not a good reason to request a breath test unless he can 100% prove the guy didn't consume alcohol after leaving his vehicle.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to reject a breath test based on this, ultimately it didn't get anywhere anyhow, surprising that eh?
But it's in the response of" have you had a drink. ".
To which he replies, "a Tea ".
He is then going to assume the guys got the smell of alcohol from the night before.
And if he did see him driving a car he could have committed an offence.
SvNewbie
04-02-14, 01:37 PM
Aside from the issue whether he did drive there drunk, pushing the guy over was unnecessary, he wasn't being aggressive or violent, just a PITA. People have gone to jail when a little shove like that has resulted in someone hitting their head and dying.
I don't really believe the coppers story that he smelled alcohol. Seems more likely that he was just abusing his power to teach the guy a lesson.
Specialone
04-02-14, 01:42 PM
And if he did see him driving a car he could have committed an offence.
But how could he prove it?
I'm repeating myself a lot now but what about having a drink after he parked?
But how could he prove it?
I'm repeating myself a lot now but what about having a drink after he parked?
You could be on a winner if he had said
We'll I've had a sniff of alachol, since ariving.
But he only admitted to the Tea.
But then you could argue that he might jump in the car a few minutes later and be over the limit
Hopefully if he had a significantly high enough level of booze he'd leve the motor there.
.
Likes been said we can see the push is not responsible.
The rest is conjecture
nah, I definitely smell a rat here. I don't believe the copper smelled anything.
This looked to me like abuse of power, nothing else.
If there was a genuine suspicion of him having been drinking, or being drunk as he claimed a few times, then collaring him as he attempted to get in a car and drive away would have been the right thing to do IMO.
You could hear that the guy clicked on fairly quickly what was going on, he turned slightly obnoxious after that. If I were in the same situation I would have probably done the exact same thing. Coppers like this give the force a bad name, should have been suspended.
The officer is an Inspector and should know better. He did seem on the edge.
Red Herring
04-02-14, 05:18 PM
The officer is an Inspector and should know better. He did seem on the edge.
Spoil sport, I was saving that bit until later.....
I just think it's a particularly bad example of policing.
There is always a certain amount of "them and us" going on in these protracted demonstrations, especially after you keep bumping into the same set of professional protesters at venue after venue. Fracking is just the latest excuse for a weekend away to them, when I saw the footage from the Sussex site I recognized people I've dealt with at Power Stations, animal exports, G8 and such like.
I think the Inspector smelt alcohol and immediately saw it as an opportunity to get one back on this proverbial PITA. It's just a pity he let his enthusiasm get the better of him and he came across as a bit of a prat. In fairness it's probably years since he last required a breath test.....
Spoil sport, I was saving that bit until later.....
Sorry old bean :D
Bluepete
04-02-14, 05:36 PM
In fairness it's probably years since he last required a breath test.....
Ah, the voice of personal experience!
I've had the opportunity to do overtime at the fracking site. I'd rather ride a curvy than do that!
Pete ;)
Specialone
04-02-14, 05:50 PM
Easy Pete, them curvies are pretty ugly...
There are some complete ar$es around.
Sadly nothing in the video serves to change my view about the type of people we have to put up with.
Red Herring
04-02-14, 07:24 PM
Ah, the voice of personal experience!
I've had the opportunity to do overtime at the fracking site. I'd rather ride a curvy than do that!
Pete ;)
I can't say I'm going to miss all that....
Bluepete
04-02-14, 07:27 PM
You're not at the stage where you're counting the number of pay packets left are you?
If you are...
Git!
Pete ;)
Red Herring
04-02-14, 10:06 PM
Might be......
chris8886
04-02-14, 11:19 PM
You're not at the stage where you're counting the number of pay packets left are you?
If you are...
Git!
Pete ;)
I'd say he is ;) :P
Bluepete
05-02-14, 04:54 PM
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/salford-anti-fracking-protester-sue-greater-6676499
Pete ;)
hindle8907
05-02-14, 05:02 PM
The Police and government are in i Gas's back pocket, there have been multiple assaults by the police over the last few months on that site that have been caught on camera.
http://iacknowledge.net/uk-police-caught-on-camera-framing-citizen-journalist-and-assaulting-protesters/
I've had my own personal experience with bent coppers, when my sister was thrown to the ground by a copper when she was trying to voice her concerns as they were arresting her partner who was the victim and the attacker was over the road, when we allerted them to the fact they had just pushed over a 5 month pregnant woman, the coppers left for a moment and then returned and she was then arrested and charged for assaulting an officer "to cover there own asses in case anything happened to the baby"
Shes a Nursery teacher and now this will show up on her CRB checks etc for a long time.
I just hope we only get to see the minority of the idiot coppers & most of them are like our forum officers but I doubt it.
Mrs DJ Fridge
05-02-14, 10:57 PM
This whole thing had gone totally viral, an acquainted of mine mentioned it to me today, so it matters not who is right or wrong, we are all talking about the police at the fracking dispute. I am sure that somebody wins there, not you or me, but people who are much better at media management than all of us.
Amadeus
06-02-14, 08:50 AM
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/salford-anti-fracking-protester-sue-greater-6676499
This is rather like the situation with the actor who was drunk and sleeping in his car. He got a ban because he refused the breath test; if he'd taken it (and almost certainly failed it), he'd have been acquitted in court because there was obviously no intention to drive (according to his solicitor - I don't know the full details).
Actually, having just read a little bit about it, it seems less clear cut to me: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059879/BT-advert-actor-Kris-Marshall-banned-driving-6-months.html
And specifically about Dr Peters, anyone who uses an educational qualification in situation where it's irrelevant is almost certainly a fool. My father has a PhD and an honour but he uses neither in daily life.
Really, what does he think he will achieve?
PS: I bet he has a really whiney voice like Liam Gallagher or Ian Brown.
And specifically about Dr Peters, anyone who uses an educational qualification in situation where it's irrelevant is almost certainly a fool.
Metaphysics is quite often abused and bandied about as a legit Doctorate.
Its faith related and you can do a on line degree in it from the US ,
Get my drift?
Amadeus
06-02-14, 11:29 AM
Metaphysics is quite often abused and bandied about as a legit Doctorate.
Its faith related and you can do a on line degree in it from the US ,
Get my drift?
Ahh, I just read the electrical engineer part but from what you've said, he's probably into homeopathy as well.
Red Herring
06-02-14, 07:23 PM
All I can say is I'm glad the police don't make as many assumptions as some of the folk on here......:)
Owenski
06-02-14, 10:56 PM
I was under the impression its is an offence to be intoxicated and in charge of a vehicle.
I dont know if its perticularly true but an old boy where I used to work always warned us on works night out about the time he got a driving ban for returning to his car after a night in town drinking. his return was so he could change to his trainers to take the train home. but he claimed as soon as he unlocked the car he was arrested under the above offence.
I know it isnt relevent to the OP but it is to the Kris Marshall thing.
Red Herring
07-02-14, 09:43 AM
Being in charge of a vehicle is a subjective thing. Technically when you are sat at home drinking a beer in front of the telly you are still in charge of your car if it is parked on the road outside your house, however there is a defense to being in charge if you can show that there was no likely hood of you driving whilst still under the influence/over the limit. It is for you to raise the defense, not for the prosecution to disprove it, and ultimately for the magistrate to decide on it's worth. Sounds like your old boy didn't make a very convincing argument.....
Nothing like being innocent unproven guilty then ;)
Red herring, as true as that may be, that is just ridiculous.
Specialone, to answer your question, it doesn't matter if you say you had a drink after arriving.
I had to go in search of a friends van with him, after his dad proceeded to plant it as far as he possibly could into a hedge. After we located it and arrange for recovery, a police car happened to be passing whilst the tow truck winched the van out of the hedge. The police then went to see the driver of the vehicle, he was breath tested and charged with drink driving. He said he had come home shaken up and had a drink to calm his nerves. He did get a driving ban.
MisterTommyH
07-02-14, 11:35 AM
I was under the impression its is an offence to be intoxicated and in charge of a vehicle.
I dont know if its perticularly true but an old boy where I used to work always warned us on works night out about the time he got a driving ban for returning to his car after a night in town drinking. his return was so he could change to his trainers to take the train home. but he claimed as soon as he unlocked the car he was arrested under the above offence.
I know it isnt relevent to the OP but it is to the Kris Marshall thing.
Being in charge of a vehicle is a subjective thing. Technically when you are sat at home drinking a beer in front of the telly you are still in charge of your car if it is parked on the road outside your house,
I was going to post this on FB as this was my understanding - if you have the keys you're in charge.....
Red herring, as true as that may be, that is just ridiculous.
You don't have to like the laws to live here..... just abide by them or face (be aware of) the potential consequences ;)
. The police then went to see the driver of the vehicle, he was breath tested and charged with drink driving. He said he had come home shaken up and had a drink to calm his nerves. He did get a driving ban.
Was he at home or with you recovering the vehicle?
Ah sorry, yes should have stated he was at home, told his son what had happened so his son and I went to look for it.
I am aware rules are rules, but stating that it is up to the defence to prove otherwise, as mentioned, goes against the laws of this country (innocent until proven guilty).
All I can say is I'm glad the police don't make as many assumptions as some of the folk on here......:)
Was just thinking that.
SvNewbie
07-02-14, 12:02 PM
He said he had come home shaken up and had a drink to calm his nerves. He did get a driving ban.
I'm guessing the magistrate in the case failed to believe that excuse. Quite rightly so in my opinion, on the balance of probabilities it sounds like bull. Obviously the magistrate would have known what he blew on the breath test and been able to make a common sense judgement as to whether it was reasonable for someone to come home and get to that level of breath alcohol after being in a crash.
CharleyFarley
07-02-14, 12:03 PM
To put a different slant on the Police/drink-drive-in charge:
Going back several years, as a HGV driver, heading North and home on Fridays about half a dozen of us would meet up just off the (old) A1 a good hour from home. Parking in a railway station car park........nice friendly local pub/take aways etc, a few pints/supper......up 6ish to 'wander' home etc.
Got up one morning to a Police traffic car across exit of car park: 2 Officers walked down and started talking to us...... friendly as ya like. I started my motor, one of the Cops said "you sure thats a good idea??......move out of this car park n we're gonna stop you/breathalys you". "However.....go back to bed n dont move off before 10.00.......no problem......its up to you........we will be watching!!"
Guess who 4went back to bed fa a few hours??
Thats GOOD "Coppering"......... 😜
"Gas it w###a".........
MisterTommyH
07-02-14, 12:15 PM
I'm sure I've had a conversation with an Orger at one of the GMs who used to be a trucker.
I think they said that when they were parked up the drivers used to swap keys (not like that ;) ) so that they could have a few bevvies in the cab and not be done for being in charge.
Amadeus
07-02-14, 12:21 PM
I know it isnt relevent to the OP but it is to the Kris Marshall thing.
With RH's comments it makes me think that he would have got off in court - the police woke him up to talk to him.
But I think if the police were to see someone in a car when they thought that person was drunk and decided to do nothing because they felt there was no/little risk of them driving but that decision was found be wrong, they'd get into trouble. Covering their bums to some degree I guess. Difficult one.
SvNewbie
07-02-14, 12:24 PM
I can't imagine that many people who have too many drinks to be able to drive, get in their cars, sleep solidly for 12 hours and wake up in a perfectly fit state.
More likely the have 3-4 hours kip, wake up, feeling a bit hungover and still well over the limit and decide to drive home.
Amadeus
07-02-14, 12:29 PM
fair point, but if you think you may be over the limit, then some sleep may be enough to get you under the limit. Understand your point tho. could be a disaster waiting to happen.
Red Herring
07-02-14, 06:44 PM
.... He said he had come home shaken up and had a drink to calm his nerves. He did get a driving ban.
The "Hip Flask" defense is a well trodden path, with limited success. Fortunately for the police most of the people who try to avail themselves of it are to intoxicated to get their facts straight so it's generally fairly easy to catch them out...... Drink driving is nowhere near the problem it used to be, but if you have ever seen the consequences to often otherwise innocent motorists you would probably understand why the laws are stacked in the police's favour. One of the few rules of the road I wouldn't contemplate breaking.
Matt-EUC
08-02-14, 11:27 AM
Not that you would ever contemplate breaking any laws ever. Would you.
The "Hip Flask" defense is a well trodden path, with limited success. Fortunately for the police most of the people who try to avail themselves of it are to intoxicated to get their facts straight so it's generally fairly easy to catch them out...... Drink driving is nowhere near the problem it used to be, but if you have ever seen the consequences to often otherwise innocent motorists you would probably understand why the laws are stacked in the police's favour. One of the few rules of the road I wouldn't contemplate breaking.
To be fair he was drink driving and was trying it on, so justice was done, in that case.
While I agree that drink driving probably isn't as prevalent as it might have been, I think part of that is down to figures being lower because the police rely to much on speed cameras policing the roads for them nowadays.
For instance, my sister in law works in a pub, and has told me the amount of people that go in, have a few, and then drive home. One of these regulars that does this from time to time is even a police officer. This is due to the fact that the pub in question is tucked out of the way, in a remote, small village where police patrol is very seldom seen.
Much the same story in the village where I live. Small village with two (used to be three) pubs in it, narrow back roads leading in and out of it and its not a village that you drive through unless you are going there, hardly any police presence, and populated by generally elder people.
When I moved here, even though its a well regarded and desirable village to live in, my car insurance went up, because there are more claims here than in the much larger, less desirable, more problematic village in which I used to live.
Pure speculation this may be, but I can imagine that is because half the old duffers around here are driving around the place half cut.
Red Herring
08-02-14, 02:36 PM
Not that you would ever contemplate breaking any laws ever. Would you.
Whilst I appreciate your loyalty you clearly need you eyes testing....:D
Back on topic I'm sure the drop in proactive police activity does have something to do with a drop in the arrest/detection rate, however you do need to be careful with stats as there are so many variables.
If we use crashes as a source, and I pick that because the police attend the vast majority of injury crashes and tend to be quite good at breath testing those involved you will see the the percentage of those that test positive has been steadily dropping. This either means that we now better at driving whilst drunk and don't crash as much, or there is less drink driving going on....
Interestingly the percentage of those caught in the "old duffer" (your words, not mine) category is falling pretty much at the same rate as other ages, and the worse group is still the 20-24 age range. Given that they generally have the most to lose that is a bit disappointing. Perhaps the older more experienced drivers are better at doing a runner and not getting caught.....
That is interesting RH, I read a few weeks ago that the cases of 'the older generation' I will call them to make you happy :) getting caught drink driving was on the increase.
I can't remember if I read that in the tabloids or the motoring press, either way I guess it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, although I can't ignore the fact that my sister in law witnesses it going on.
Any figures on drink driving rates increasing/decreasing while spot checking is carried out over Christmas period?
Red Herring
08-02-14, 04:42 PM
Like I said you have to be careful with figures.
Drink driving is always more likely to be prevalent in rural areas as the distances between the house and the pub and lack of alternative transport (or the cost of trying to get a taxi out in the sticks) makes it more tempting. Combine this with the relative lack of traffic, non-existent policing, and provided you keep the speeds down and stay out of the hedges/ditches less chance of a crash and you can see why it happens. Then start looking at the demographics around who lives in the countryside and you can see why your sister-in-law sees what she does.....
The problem with Christmas campaign figures is that if you look for something, you're more likely to find it. Throw a bunch of officers on overtime at passing traffic and the results are fairly predictable, at any time of the year.
Also, and I know you are probably going to try and deny or defend this next statement, but a 20-24 year old is more likely to be pulled over than a 60-65 year old, so it stands to reason that more 20-24 year olds will be caught.
If a patrol car is behind a ****ed 20 year old in a Citroen Saxo and a pnc check is carried out, chances are he'll get pulled over. If a ****ed 60 year old in a Volvo is followed and a pnc carried out, unless he is all over the road, he won't be.
I am nearly forty. I ride bikes, and drive fast cars. I have not been randomly pulled over for 20 years.
When I was a youngun, riding a moped, I probably got pulled over once a month, if it was averaged out.
When I had my first car and second cars I didn't get pulled so often, but I would still get pulled, just for spot check.
Like I say, from the 20 or so years since, I have never been pulled for a spot check.
Red Herring
08-02-14, 04:59 PM
I wouldn't ever try and deny the truth, and what is there to defend? I mean, statistically 20-24 year olds are more likely to be drink driving aren't they....;)
Yeh, if you want to validate the reason for pulling over 20-24 year olds and not 60-65 year olds ;)
Joking aside, yes there is a valid reason for pulling over people in this age group, more likely to be up to no good than the 60-65 year olds, but it stands to reason the more people in that age group that are pulled over the more the percentage is going to swing against them.
Red Herring
08-02-14, 05:46 PM
The reality is that officers on patrol are thinking of a whole lot of things in addition to drink driving, and the facts are that young men in older cars are more likely to tick certain boxes.
If it helps any when conducting "drink drive" road checks pretty much everything gets pulled over and the driver spoken to sufficiently to establish if they have been drinking, and with more and more ANPR in use a lot of the routine stops are now based on intelligence linked to the vehicle rather than what the driver looks like.
Of course if you are a 22 year old male and you've just bought a Saxo off the local drug dealer it's probably best not to have a drink tonight.....
Amadeus
08-02-14, 05:55 PM
I'm a bit puzzled here. I would accept that a 20 year old would tick more boxes, but by pulling them over based on age, is that not the same as "profiling" which I believe is not policy?
(No criticism intended, merely trying to understand)
Red Herring
08-02-14, 06:15 PM
I'm sure you're right. Fortunately most good coppers don't let a little thing like policy get in the way of doing their job properly.
Amadeus
08-02-14, 07:12 PM
It must have been a lot easier when policy was to slam people up against their car and shout "You slaaag!" at them. You knew where you stood then.
Red Herring
08-02-14, 08:17 PM
Not really. It was a whole lot easier when the object of the exercise was to maintain law and order rather than to meet whatever target just happens to be in favour at the moment. I think we've gone far enough off topic with this now.
The reality is that officers on patrol are thinking of a whole lot of things in addition to drink driving, and the facts are that young men in older cars are more likely to tick certain boxes.
If it helps any when conducting "drink drive" road checks pretty much everything gets pulled over and the driver spoken to sufficiently to establish if they have been drinking, and with more and more ANPR in use a lot of the routine stops are now based on intelligence linked to the vehicle rather than what the driver looks like.
Of course if you are a 22 year old male and you've just bought a Saxo off the local drug dealer it's probably best not to have a drink tonight.....
This is what I was implying when I said there is a valid reason for pulling over that age group.
I am aware of the fact that when drink drive checks take place pretty much every car is stopped, where I used to live the police carried out one right outside my house, all the youngsters that were stopped got back in their cars and left, it was an older gentleman in a new range rover that was taken away in the back of the police car.
Mrs DJ Fridge
08-02-14, 10:25 PM
Not judging in any way, out of hand across the board judgement follows, but we live in the country, at the edge of a town. There is a fantastic speed track around the local roads where the youngsters do have races, not officially of course, I have to make a sweeping judgement here and say that I have never in the last 25 years seen a Volvo in the ditch, but I have seen an awful lot of souped up hot hatches. My Volvo can do the roads a quite a speed when I am coming home (totally sober) in the middle of the night. I don't race the bike along said route because I usually ride the bike during the day when there are too many cars.
Amadeus
08-02-14, 11:00 PM
Not really. It was a whole lot easier when the object of the exercise was to maintain law and order rather than to meet whatever target just happens to be in favour at the moment. I think we've gone far enough off topic with this now.
Sorry if my comments came across as disrespectful in any way - it was not my intention.
Red Herring
08-02-14, 11:34 PM
Not nearly as disrespectful as I might be about some aspects of modern "policing" if you got me started...... which is why I'd better stop!
Matt-EUC
11-02-14, 03:02 PM
I experienced some excellent policing the other night. Was riding back home and a car pulled out behind me. It was dark so didn't realise to begin with. It got a tad close behind so I sped up a little, he blipped his blues and I thought "oh bugger" we went past a couple of lay-bys and he didn't tell me to pull over so I carried on until he turned off.
I then understood that his light blip was a "watch it sunshine." He could have pulled me over but he also knew he didn't have to.
Good policing IMO.
CharleyFarley
11-02-14, 03:35 PM
I had a Police car overtake me, (doing 55mph/single carriage road/40mph fa HGV) put his blue lights on and slow me down to 40........flash his hazards at me and drove off!!
Dont forget they need 2lots of proof to prosecute, in this case my tachograph chart and a Vascar read-out......or his word + a proven 'calibrated' speedo reading!!
Some of the "clever" Coppers will try n fool you into admitting the offence (come on sonshine.....how fast were you going when I pulled out behind you.....we both know you were doing 55!!) ..........hence 'proof'.....my tacho chart + my 'own admission'....
"Gas it w###a".........
Red Herring
11-02-14, 05:33 PM
Actually all they need is their opinion corroborated by something else, which can in theory be the opinion of another officer. If they are going to use a mechanical device as corroboration it has to be approved and calibrated. The vast majority of "panda" cars don't have calibrated speedos fitted to them so unless you're seriously taking the micky you haven't to much to fear, especially if you clock them and show appropriate respect by knocking it off a bit.
Bluepete
11-02-14, 06:43 PM
When I was on traffic, I "warned" faaaaaar more people about speed than ticketing them. It just wasn't a particular offence that I felt comfortable doing, given my riding style. It felt a little hypocritical.
Pete ;)
Red Herring
11-02-14, 07:55 PM
I'm with you on that one Pete. I was always far more interested in why they drove past a fully marked up jam sandwich at 90mph without appearing to notice it......
hindle8907
14-02-14, 03:53 PM
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/fifty-anti-fracking-protesters-arrested-barton-6707207
Owenski
14-02-14, 07:42 PM
I'm with you on that one Pete. I was always far more interested in why they drove past a fully marked up jam sandwich at 90mph without appearing to notice it......
Thats a bloody good way of looking at it old bean!
It wouldnt bother me one bit if jenson button was doing 90+ in his AMG down the M1 because his levels of obs and reaction rate would be far superior than most.
But if someone tanking it doesnt notice a battenburg in the nearside lane they're not to kind of person to be notcing some of the more sublte hazards that are out there. With that in mind id highly encourage what ever may get the to readjust their mind set or simply remove their licence privalidges.
Bluepete
15-02-14, 03:08 AM
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/fifty-anti-fracking-protesters-arrested-barton-6707207
With regards to this strange decision by the courts and CPS.
When the fracking site was first proposed and the Policing plan was proposed, the status of the access to the site was a key issue. A judicial review stated that it was a Highway with vehicular access. This is obviously important as it means certain offences can be available to Officers. If it is now deemed to be a public footpath, surely the site would have to shut down as the lorries couldn't use it?
It's a strange decision made today.
Pete ;)
Specialone
15-02-14, 06:35 AM
Perhaps that is the strategy of the anti's law team, get the courts to accept its a public footpath then bring out that out about vehicular use, lawfully then the site can't be used, they win against igas, or have I been watching too much 'Suits' on Dave?
Red Herring
15-02-14, 10:23 AM
That's an interesting piece of reporting. I always get suspicious when they don't actually quote what was said but state their interpretation. The judge has decided the road in question is a footpath but that in itself does not mean they cannot be charged with the obstruction as a footpath is still a highway. I suspect that as always the devil is in the detail. It may well be that the nature of the obstruction was to prevent vehicles from passing rather than persons on foot so if the defence show that vehicle access is in itself illegal they can submit that their clients were acting with "lawful excuse". Funny how the little things can trip you up!
When I was on traffic, I "warned" faaaaaar more people about speed than ticketing them. It just wasn't a particular offence that I felt comfortable doing, given my riding style. It felt a little hypocritical.
Pete ;)
I'm with you on that one Pete. I was always far more interested in why they drove past a fully marked up jam sandwich at 90mph without appearing to notice it......
Hats off to you two, sensible coppers.
I have to be honest, twice I've been pulled over for speeding by the police (which in itself is pretty lucky:)).
The first was in my younger days. Was doing 60 odd in a 40 zone near my house that had only recently been changed and used to be national speed. I told the coppers the truth; my dad wanted me back home from a party at a certain time and I was stepping on it a bit as was running behind. Got off with a warning.
More recently, I was doing just over 90 on the M1. Went for an undertake after waiting for the middle and fast lane hoggers to move which they didn't. As I got back on to the fast lane, I spotted an unmarked car 2 vehicles behind flash their blues to the car in front so they could catch me up. I immediately slowed down and moved back into the middle. They stopped me, gave me a bit of a bollocking and said I was lucky I spotted them as they hadn't clocked me going fast enough for long enough. It wasn't lucky, it was a good spot:) and they were probably of the same thought that RH has posted. As I got out of their car, I told them that I recognised them from that BBC Motorway Cops show.
The asian policeman Tanvir at 40mins in the vid below and a partner of his
2bNOgDmnupo
Cool fellas, especially after I mentioned I've watched 'em on TV before. Anyway, after what BP and RH have said, wanted to post my experiences to show that there are other coppers out there on the same wavelength.
Matt-EUC
15-02-14, 03:03 PM
Tl;dr
CharleyFarley
15-02-14, 04:03 PM
ATTITUDE.........comes into it in a BIG way in my experience
35yrs (😳) 'on the road', upto 60000miles a year (wagons)
Only ever had 3 points (36 in a 30) by camera van
Got away with 'loads'........'good attitude' tpwards Police, even 'snotty-ar$y ones.......works a treat. Even been told several times that they had 'every intention of doing me', ya attitude got ya out of it!!!
Gas it w###a".........
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.