Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

happy_renting

Pigs

Recommended Posts

I hope these cops are prosecuted and thrown out of the force.

I agree but doubt that it will happen.

It is completely disgusting when you think about it. Hired thugs willing to damage private property and trod over civil liberties for a private fracking company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prosecuted? Chucked of the force? I'll eat my hat if either of those happen.

He should be, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prosecuted? Chucked of the force? I'll eat my hat if either of those happen.

He should be, of course.

Given the increasing cheapness of small cameras I suspect there will be more and more of this, cops will initially behave better until the Police Federation get hold of some decent editing software....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were ever called up for jury duty, i would be very reluctant to convict anyone purely on witness evidence from the police. Which is probably a good thing.

another vid in that set shows a group of officers "asking reasonably" that the group keeps moving.

Asking reasonably apparently means move on or arrest for obstruction.

My, how things have changed...there is either an obstruction or there isnt. And the WPCs were deffo more attractive when I was in the Force...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't watch all the video but saw up to the accusation of drinking. It's fairly obvious what happened really. The officer smelt alcohol on the guys breath and asked if he had been drinking. The officer then misheard 'I've had tea' as 'I've had two'. The result is then inevitable. The officer could hardly let that go could he?

It's easy for us to hear clearly but someone on the scene in close proximity to a noisy crowd (and noisy policemen) could easily mishear. The officer, having smelt alcohol really only has one course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My, how things have changed...there is either an obstruction or there isnt. And the WPCs were deffo more attractive when I was in the Force...

11c7aj7.jpg

I would've

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What disturbs me most is that the other officers join in. It is clearly run of the mill for them to intimidate and to try and stitch up the protester/observer, quite sinister. there is clearly a cultural problem within that force.

It amazes me that this happens; I believe (despite my thread title) that most police are decent people, and surely would not go along with such behaviour. I guess closely-knit organisations have their own rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't watch all the video but saw up to the accusation of drinking. It's fairly obvious what happened really. The officer smelt alcohol on the guys breath and asked if he had been drinking. The officer then misheard 'I've had tea' as 'I've had two'. The result is then inevitable. The officer could hardly let that go could he?

It's easy for us to hear clearly but someone on the scene in close proximity to a noisy crowd (and noisy policemen) could easily mishear. The officer, having smelt alcohol really only has one course of action.

Hmm. "tea", "two". Easy mistake to make - if you're looking for an excuse to arrest someone.

Of course, he'd still have no defence for refusal even if he had been drinking tea. So the CPS wouldn't have binned the case:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/salford-anti-fracking-protester-sue-greater-6676499

The copper dreamed up all the criteria for arrest; suspicion of drinking and use of a vehicle. Both were untrue which is why the CPS chucked it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha! Joyce Grenfell! Much posher than police ladies today! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. "tea", "two". Easy mistake to make - if you're looking for an excuse to arrest someone.

Of course, he'd still have no defence for refusal even if he had been drinking tea. So the CPS wouldn't have binned the case:

http://www.mancheste...greater-6676499

The copper dreamed up all the criteria for arrest; suspicion of drinking and use of a vehicle. Both were untrue which is why the CPS chucked it.

BUT, the CPS did proceed....

Hill walking country for my friend Chief Constable Mick Todd....who I know abhored this type of behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT, the CPS did proceed....

Hill walking country for my friend Chief Constable Mick Todd....who I know abhored this type of behaviour.

That's not how I read the article:

Father-of-four Dr Peers was then arrested and charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath but the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was insufficient evidence for a conviction so withdrew the case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not how I read the article:

He was later charged by GMP but the case fell apart at court when prosecutors offered no evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my return from work tonight, I witnessesed the local 'Scrap Metal Collector' being hassled by the Bobbies in our back street.

The compassionate person in me thought "Oh, he's just trying to make a living to rise from his poor travelling roots and yeah his white van might be a death-trap and be short of such minor items as tax, mot, tyre-tread and insurance - and if people don't want him to 'collect' their expensive patio furniture, pushbikes and power-tools, they should put them indoors to avoid any confusion. Leave him alone you fascists pigs...!!!"

But another part of me was praying that Gene Hunt would squeal round the corner in the Quattro and kick the living shite out of the thieving Gypsy c***..!

Glad I've never had to be on a jury...

XYY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't watch all the video but saw up to the accusation of drinking. It's fairly obvious what happened really. The officer smelt alcohol on the guys breath and asked if he had been drinking. The officer then misheard 'I've had tea' as 'I've had two'. The result is then inevitable. The officer could hardly let that go could he?

It's easy for us to hear clearly but someone on the scene in close proximity to a noisy crowd (and noisy policemen) could easily mishear. The officer, having smelt alcohol really only has one course of action.

It's patently obvious that this is not what occurred. Your misjudged comments in the Mitchell case makes it look like you are prepared to give the Police the benefit of the doubt when none is justified.

Why did the officer persist with the drink allegations when the person filming corrected him, if it was an innocent case of being misheard? Surely nothing to do with a convenient situation in the 'failure to give a specimen of breath for analysis' law which allows people to be lifted without much ability to fight it?:

What if I told the Police that I was not driving but they refused to believe me so I refused to give a specimen?

You can still be convicted. The Police have the right to request the specimen based on a suspicion of whether you were driving. It is not critical to the offence that their is suspicion is correct. Your refusal to give a specimen on the basis that you do not believe the request is justified is an offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they do get sacked they seem to be re-instated. That utter piece of scum who knocked about, what turned out to be an innocent woman, in the custody suite managed to.

The police really need to take a good hard look in the mirror before they start bleating someone's set up an RIP Raoul Moat U Legend Facebook page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's patently obvious that this is not what occurred. Your misjudged comments in the Mitchell case makes it look like you are prepared to give the Police the benefit of the doubt when none is justified.

Why did the officer persist with the drink allegations when the person filming corrected him, if it was an innocent case of being misheard? Surely nothing to do with a convenient situation in the 'failure to give a specimen of breath for analysis' law which allows people to be lifted without much ability to fight it?:

I'm just trying to see both sides. The title of the thread is a little one-sided.

As for the question of why the Officer persisted, well what would you expect? Just because the guy denies the offence, you think the PC should leave it? Crims lie all the time. 90% of the people that policemen come into contact with are pathological liars (and no I'm not talking about their colleagues).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On an emotional level with that officer, why didn't he walk away? It is scary that you can be accused of drink driving, while not being in a car, or drunk.

It is clear that the officer is on quicksand and he knows it, when the other officers join in, the fear, alarm, and lies are written all over their faces, yet they persist in something that is intellectually embarrassing.

So, you bring the guy before the desk sergeant, and say I have arrested thus man for drink driving. Was he drunk officer? No was he driving officer? No so I arrested on my suspicions and because he refused a breathylizer test sarge, at this point surely some sort of self awareness would kick in? I was just waiting for resisting arrest and assault.

The police are public servants, who, if I ask nicely, should tell me the time and give me directions to my nearest post office if I require. I do t pay these mother******ers to harass my fellows.

But with that as an advert for the modern police force, what sensible human being would risk their soul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On an emotional level with that officer, why didn't he walk away? It is scary that you can be accused of drink driving, while not being in a car, or drunk.

It is clear that the officer is on quicksand and he knows it, when the other officers join in, the fear, alarm, and lies are written all over their faces, yet they persist in something that is intellectually embarrassing.

So, you bring the guy before the desk sergeant, and say I have arrested thus man for drink driving. Was he drunk officer? No was he driving officer? No so I arrested on my suspicions and because he refused a breathylizer test sarge, at this point surely some sort of self awareness would kick in? I was just waiting for resisting arrest and assault.

The police are public servants, who, if I ask nicely, should tell me the time and give me directions to my nearest post office if I require. I do t pay these mother******ers to harass my fellows.

But with that as an advert for the modern police force, what sensible human being would risk their soul?

the offence is failing to provide a specimen of breath whilst being suspected of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle on a road.

Yes, you dont need to be driving...you could be walking home having had a few bevvies and left the car outside the restaurant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the whole video.

The first PC was a bit of an w a n k e r but the other three were very reasonable, tolerant and fair. All the guy had to do was provide a specimen of breath and he would not have been arrested. Any idiot knows that failing to provide a specimen of breath will result in arrest. The Officers explained that several times to him in a calm and measured way and still he persisted in insisting on his arrest. The first officer just wanted the guy out of his face and handed him over to his fellow officers in a bit of a sneaky way. The other officers had no choice but to proceed with breath testing given the information provided.

The first officer needs a bit of retraining I would say. From his barely concealed smirking he knew he was pulling a fast one but from his point of view he'd got rid of a protestor who was irritating and could then get back to policing the demonstration (what was going on there? Some kind of picket?).

The 'victim' clearly was an amateur since he wasn't aware of the law or was playing ignorant in order to capture what he thinks is sensational footage showing fascist bully boy policemen oppressing the innocent.

From what I can see, apart from the first officer, the police come out of that rather well I would say.

Imagine the same scene in Russia, Iraq, Pakistan or even the USA. Nobody was shot, beaten, tasered, pepper sprayed or even killed.

Thank God I was born British.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the whole video.

The first PC was a bit of an w a n k e r but the other three were very reasonable, tolerant and fair. All the guy had to do was provide a specimen of breath and he would not have been arrested. Any idiot knows that failing to provide a specimen of breath will result in arrest. The Officers explained that several times to him in a calm and measured way and still he persisted in insisting on his arrest. The first officer just wanted the guy out of his face and handed him over to his fellow officers in a bit of a sneaky way. The other officers had no choice but to proceed with breath testing given the information provided.

The first officer needs a bit of retraining I would say. From his barely concealed smirking he knew he was pulling a fast one but from his point of view he'd got rid of a protestor who was irritating and could then get back to policing the demonstration (what was going on there? Some kind of picket?).

The 'victim' clearly was an amateur since he wasn't aware of the law or was playing ignorant in order to capture what he thinks is sensational footage showing fascist bully boy policemen oppressing the innocent.

From what I can see, apart from the first officer, the police come out of that rather well I would say.

Imagine the same scene in Russia, Iraq, Pakistan or even the USA. Nobody was shot, beaten, tasered, pepper sprayed or even killed.

Thank God I was born British.

That is a view.

One wonders what the Police were doing there in the first place. What was the aim of the group, the police video and the threat and public order they were on hand to prevent?

Individual actions can usually be defended by taking each and every on out of context, but this is the refuge of the scoundrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the whole video.

The first PC was a bit of an w a n k e r but the other three were very reasonable, tolerant and fair. All the guy had to do was provide a specimen of breath and he would not have been arrested. Any idiot knows that failing to provide a specimen of breath will result in arrest.

Yes, the moral is to be a good little boy and let yourself get ordered around for no good reason by your betters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   203 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.