Anyone just see Traffic cops? SMIDSY perp let off with joke and a laugh

Originally Posted by Jdubya

Coz the smidsy **** was insured...

Hey, you said '****'.

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

On these programs almost everyone they stop is driving uninsured- and the penalties are tiny. So much so I wonder why I pay through my teeth for it

It certainly does make you wonder in the current climate.

That bloke was not RNPTI, they don’t work shifts or nights, as he said he did. The reason he did not get his car crushed was probably because it was smashed up by the bike and written off anyway.

The insurance thing does bring me onto something. I have noticed in these programmes that they just rely on the PNC to check details now. Now my issue with this is that if there are no ins details showing rather than in the good old days give you a producer they just assume you are guilty and do you for it there and then and have the right to seize the car.

If you had for example (and quite plausible) just got the car and insured it as of 0900 and get tugged at 0910 then there is no way on earth that you will either have your certificate through yet or it will be showing on the insurers database or the PNC , on top of that just because the PNC does not show any ins details does not mean they are not insured!!

Ergo a 100% legitimate driver could get some c**k of a traffic cop (and lets face it most are) and have his car seized illegally. Now my question would be to the police as I know I am insured are you going to put your name down as the person my lawyer Sue’s the f**k out of to recover the illegally incurred costs?? Or would you get a refund and apology from the cops?

I am sure that we are in the UK and as such innocent until proven guilty, correct me if I am wrong.

I have pay monthly from ebike and I have always wondered if they update the insurance data base monthly or just put it on once and then remove details if I stopped the policy?

If I was threatened with that and I knew I was 100% legal (which I am) I would just calmly get back in my car and inform the cop that I am now driving off, they can follow me home and then I will get out my ins cert. I know they would do me for failing to stop, but go to court with a lawyer and make them look like cu*t’s for trying to do me for something I was not guilty of , oh and when I got let off then recover the costs from the force!! All for the sake of not giving a simple producer.

I know some smart **** will say well just carry your ins cert, do you? no doubt it either. Its more a stand for the cops not assuming the worst and doing things they have no right to do.

As my mrs is a copper she gets well wound up with me saying I would just drive off and bring them home!! LOL

Originally Posted by neio79

I am sure that we are in the UK and as such innocent until proven guilty, correct me if I am wrong.

Another part of that programme concerned me deeply about innocent until proven guilty (I was certainly guilty of shouting at the TV about it - sorry TV ).

The guy that had the officer turn up at his home, because they'd been told he was driving whilst under the influence of alcohol. Granted the guy was an ar*e, but the officers words at the police station were the cause for concern.

Firstly, the guy was drinking in his house, and the police are taking the word of another person that he was driving. He denied it absolutely, and got mighty annoyed at the police arresting him (not quite as annoyed as I would be, but still).

Down at the police station, the officer claimed that innocent people wouldn't continue drinking (in their own home) whilst talking to an officer about drink driving, they'd want to prove their innocence. What? Forgive me, but I'd be merrily chugging it down whilst laughing at the officer in question for even knocking on my door!

Then the officer said that the onus is on the man to prove he wasn't drunk before he drove the car, not that they have to prove he was drunk in the vehicle. Erm. What?

So I can drive home, down 3/4 a botle of neat vodka getting absolutely lashed, then police can knock on my door, and it's up to me to prove that I was sober whilst I drove home. How the hell does that work? It was the word of one person against another. For me to be in court, I'd expect some evidence that I'd committed an offence, otherwise it's surely a case of wrongful arrest at the very least, and possibly a charge of wasting police time for the person reporting me.

It was all bl00dy stupid. What about the PC who gave the girl (she just passed her test) 3 points and £60 fine for stopping in front of a chippy? Surely it would be more appropriatte to just have a word? Hiding behind legislation and showing off his power ... what a kn0b. Then later on I am sure he let off some pi$$ head to drive on? It makes me laugh. Nothing against cops as there is not enough of them on the roads but not those idiots that are curing their own complex on road users. How pathetic was he justifying his own actions?

Originally Posted by Baph

Another part of that programme concerned me deeply about innocent until proven guilty (I was certainly guilty of shouting at the TV about it - sorry TV ).

The guy that had the officer turn up at his home, because they'd been told he was driving whilst under the influence of alcohol. Granted the guy was an ar*e, but the officers words at the police station were the cause for concern.

Firstly, the guy was drinking in his house, and the police are taking the word of another person that he was driving. He denied it absolutely, and got mighty annoyed at the police arresting him (not quite as annoyed as I would be, but still).

Down at the police station, the officer claimed that innocent people wouldn't continue drinking (in their own home) whilst talking to an officer about drink driving, they'd want to prove their innocence. What? Forgive me, but I'd be merrily chugging it down whilst laughing at the officer in question for even knocking on my door!

Then the officer said that the onus is on the man to prove he wasn't drunk before he drove the car, not that they have to prove he was drunk in the vehicle. Erm. What?

So I can drive home, down 3/4 a botle of neat vodka getting absolutely lashed, then police can knock on my door, and it's up to me to prove that I was sober whilst I drove home. How the hell does that work? It was the word of one person against another. For me to be in court, I'd expect some evidence that I'd committed an offence, otherwise it's surely a case of wrongful arrest at the very least, and possibly a charge of wasting police time for the person reporting me.

In that occasion it would get to court and fall down, get thrown out for sure!!
Lack of evidence, as in none but word of mouth.

To be prosecuted successfully of DD you need to be caught in the act or in the car with the keys.

If I was him I would not sweat it, any lawyer could have that thrown out, and in fact I would be surprised if the CPS would continue given the severe lack of evidence i.e. NONE!!!!

I would be cocky with them knowing that they have to prove I was driving, coming to my house and just seeing me with a drink is not evidence, what they had was circumstance at the most!!

And as for the copper who gave that girl the 3 points and £60 fine what a complet f**king C*nting t*at!!

IMO, he was right to give her a ticket. There was plenty of space to stop 10ft down the road, it was her friends being lazy that encouraged her into a bad habit that I doubt she'll repeat again.

What if someone was coming out of the take away, drunk, and a car didn't see them because of her being parked there?

Those zig-zag lines are there for a reason!

Originally Posted by Baph

IMO, he was right to give her a ticket. There was plenty of space to stop 10ft down the road, it was her friends being lazy that encouraged her into a bad habit that I doubt she'll repeat again.

What if someone was coming out of the take away, drunk, and a car didn't see them because of her being parked there?

Those zig-zag lines are there for a reason!

I agree that it was ill advised to park there, however to be technically parked you have to have the car engine off and no one in it, otherwise it’s technically pulled over!! That is why if you stop on double yellows with the engine running and you don’t leave the car you cant get done just told to move on!

That aside a stern talking too would have done the job on a young 17yr old driver, it was IMHO overkill. I think he was showing off for the cameras!

That is her on eggshells now as she would have to go nearly 2 years of driving like an angel to avoid going back to a learner just cos of some knob!

Originally Posted by neio79

I agree that it was ill advised to park there, however to be technically parked you have to have the car engine off and no one in it, otherwise it’s technically pulled over!! That is why if you stop on double yellows with the engine running and you don’t leave the car you cant get done just told to move on!

Don't forget the charge for causing an obstruction, which in her case, she was clearly guilty of.

Originally Posted by Baph

Firstly, the guy was drinking in his house, and the police are taking the word of another person that he was driving. He denied it absolutely, and got mighty annoyed at the police arresting him (not quite as annoyed as I would be, but still).

Down at the police station, the officer claimed that innocent people wouldn't continue drinking (in their own home) whilst talking to an officer about drink driving, they'd want to prove their innocence. What? Forgive me, but I'd be merrily chugging it down whilst laughing at the officer in question for even knocking on my door!

Now, I didn't see the program in question, but that is some bizarre 'logic' on the part of the officer. If anything, the fact he continued drinking implied his innocence. If you had been drink driving, surely you would want to project an impression of sobriety and moderation and, more importantly, make sure that your tongue didn't get too loose after a few jars and accidentally say something that would incriminate you?