Police TV prog last night

[Luckypants]

But it also clearly shows that coppers pull you over based on myth and not on fact or point of law, which is the point of Baph's original post I think.

Unless a cop knows he is correct IN LAW, he should not be giving you grief. That's called harrassment.

Maybe its just that they are only human, and are trying to be efficient in their job, so long as they are happy to accept when they are wrong I think that its ok.

Like everything in life, your get the good and the bad.

There are some top coppers, can have a good natter with them...

BUT

Theres the mini hitlers who think like dugg dredd, "I AM THE LAW!" which winds everyone up with their 'im so powerfull and mighty' approach to policing.

No, I am being too kind...it is their job to know the law! So they should get their facts straight, however, mistakes happen so at least he accepted that! sorry, Miss indecisive had an argument with Miss everyoneisnice!

Originally Posted by Tomcat

Maybe its just that they are only human, and are trying to be efficient in their job, so long as they are happy to accept when they are wrong I think that its ok.

Exactly, if they admit they were wrong that's fine. But for this copper on the TV last night to be saying he could give out a ticket for undertaking is just plain wrong. The least he could of done was to actually explain the situation, and that the ticket would be for driving without due care, which would then let the driver explain her side of the events to him.

I also saw another guy, who got pulled for not having his lights on. His argument was that the copper could of merely flashed his lights to tell him, but pulled him over & the guy saw this as a waste of time. Now, I can see his point, but still, he had no lights on. The copper (different copper) explained this one simply by saying that if he hadn't pulled him over, he wouldn't of had chance to talk to him, to smell his breath etc. Good point fairly made.

During the conversation with the guy with no lights, the copper said that he was going to breathalise him, and duly went to the boot of his car, only to find he had no breath kit as someone else had taken it out. D'oh! So he decided not to inconvience this guy because he couldn't smell alcohol anyway. IMO, if he couldn't smell it, why did he bother going to get the kit out?!?!

good point baph. I watched it also. Their point of these 'petty' pull overs, were that they often lead to further law breaking being caught (sorry not good english but you should get what I am trying to say!). For example the guy with the drugs in his car was actually pulled for
a) no seat belt
b) on the mobile phone

The ironic thing about this was in the end, he got off because they couldn't prove weather he or the owner of the car was responsible for the drugs. (This was a large amount of drugs, they valued at over £6000

However, the girl who did the undertake in the bus lane, was honest, admitted it, apologized, and explained her actions etc got fined £30 quid, WTF

Maybe he altered what he said for the benefit of the TV cameras and the audience?

As pointed out already, there is no offence of "undertaking" (although I do think that the name is appropriate!), but it could be that he chose those that word rather than the less specific "driving without due care and attention" for the benefit of TV viewers to convey the reason why he stopped her.

I have no doubt that if he'd booked the young lady in question it would have been for the correct offence and not for "undertaking".

I was more amazed by the guy who got a bit of an "attitude" when he was stopped for driving at night without his lights on. What a nob.

I thought he was nob too. He'd be the sort that would shout the loudest if he saw someone else driving with no lights! Bet he forgot to put his lights on coz he was on the phone !

I thought he was a door handle at first, when he jumped out of the car, but I also understood his point of view. Yes, he'd made a mistake, but that's all he was guilty of (much like some saw the coppers I mentionned above).

Towards the end he did start seeing it as more of a laugh (I thought). He was probably just in a bad mood, and maybe arguing with the wife which is why he didn't put his lights on.

The guy with drugs in the car though was an idiot. Called his boss so the copper could invite him down just to get arrested too. However, we live in a country where you're innocent until the law proves otherwise. All they had to do is deny knolwedge of it, and as the car is borrowed by multiple people, they couldn't prove who was responsible, so couldn't prosecute. The car was howerver, as they said, covered with DR tags, so IMO, it's only a matter of time for them.

i also watched the cop programme on bbc1 and i thought that the asian woman said that the driver infront of her was going slowre than her and undertook to get past, surley that is illegal and nothing to do with filtering, why not overtake instead of undertaking?