Police error, complaint upheld, doing me anyway! Defend?!
Discussion
Ian Geary said:
This thread has demonstrated that two wrongs do in fact make a right.
Still, good reminder to the police who post on here that
a) the police are not always right, even if this goes against everything their training told them
b) police do also lie sometimes (as do suspects of course)
c) I doubt the few individuals who have the tenacity to challenge are the only ones who have found a and b to be true.
All of which takes the shine off a service that should have people's respect.
Ian
Do they? Where's the right? We've no idea if the officer is being punished, and someone who was using a phone whilst driving went unpunished.Still, good reminder to the police who post on here that
a) the police are not always right, even if this goes against everything their training told them
b) police do also lie sometimes (as do suspects of course)
c) I doubt the few individuals who have the tenacity to challenge are the only ones who have found a and b to be true.
All of which takes the shine off a service that should have people's respect.
Ian
OpulentBob said:
To think a PH'er gave a prod to the officer involved feels a bit tinfoil-hatty to me, but if true, and the (proven to be) lying officer gets a b
king (or worse) then that PH'er should be feeling pretty low right now.
Lying constables should always be dismissed, and prosecuted.king (or worse) then that PH'er should be feeling pretty low right now.We cannot afford to have any dishonest police; every conviction depending on their evidence is put in doubt.
fluffnik said:
goldblum said:
He's used a technicality to worm out of a conviction, that's all.
No, he has exposed a dishonest police. That is a service to the whole community.Correct. Well done Goose.
One would have hoped that the Police had moved on from the policy of nicking the nearest Irishman, but it appears that they haven't moved very far.
The officer should be prosecuted for CPOJ and dismissed
randlemarcus said:
Lovely sentiments, nice.
You're welcome. Just to clarify: Having got away with it once, if he's stupid enough to do it again, which he will be, he deserves the book throwing at him.randlemarcus said:
Personal opinion is that using a phone while driving is inherently dangerous, but that doing so in hands rather than a cradle is insignificantly more so. Stupid law, but the rate of prosecution sort of justifies the stupidity. Sadly, it masks the underlying lack of concentration from the talking.
Why is it a stupid law? It's been shown time and again in a multitude of studies by people with considerably more intelligence than yourself that any kind of phone use, whether in hand or cradle, marks a significant distraction for the driver.fluffnik said:
goldblum said:
He's used a technicality to worm out of a conviction, that's all.
No, he has exposed a dishonest police. That is a service to the whole community.goldblum said:
randlemarcus said:
Lovely sentiments, nice.
You're welcome. Just to clarify: Having got away with it once, if he's stupid enough to do it again, which he will be, he deserves the book throwing at him.randlemarcus said:
Personal opinion is that using a phone while driving is inherently dangerous, but that doing so in hands rather than a cradle is insignificantly more so. Stupid law, but the rate of prosecution sort of justifies the stupidity. Sadly, it masks the underlying lack of concentration from the talking.
Why is it a stupid law? It's been shown time and again in a multitude of studies by people with considerably more intelligence than yourself that any kind of phone use, whether in hand or cradle, marks a significant distraction for the driver.And a wonderful illustration of your attitude to debate, as well. How kind.
Paul Dishman said:
fluffnik said:
goldblum said:
He's used a technicality to worm out of a conviction, that's all.
No, he has exposed a dishonest police. That is a service to the whole community.Correct. Well done Goose.
One would have hoped that the Police had moved on from the policy of nicking the nearest Irishman, but it appears that they haven't moved very far.
The officer should be prosecuted for CPOJ and dismissed
How are those blinkers goldblum?
goldblum said:
fluffnik said:
No, he has exposed a dishonest police. That is a service to the whole community.
Are you on drugs? How on earth has this been a service to the whole community? Certainly no service to me or anyone I know so perhaps you'd like to qualify that statement.fluffnik said:
goldblum said:
fluffnik said:
No, he has exposed a dishonest police. That is a service to the whole community.
Are you on drugs? How on earth has this been a service to the whole community? Certainly no service to me or anyone I know so perhaps you'd like to qualify that statement.goldblum said:
fluffnik said:
Dishonest police are a fundamentally Bad Thing®, their removal is a social good.
I'd prefer the removal of a dangerous driver if it's all the same to you.I want this evidence fabricating police sacked and prosecuted not because I am anti police but because I am very, very pro good policing...
fluffnik said:
goldblum said:
fluffnik said:
Dishonest police are a fundamentally Bad Thing®, their removal is a social good.
I'd prefer the removal of a dangerous driver if it's all the same to you.I want this evidence fabricating police sacked and prosecuted not because I am anti police but because I am very, very pro good policing...
goldblum said:
I'd prefer the removal of a dangerous driver if it's all the same to you.
I have fully comp insurance with covers me against bad/dangerous drivers.Bent Coppers can and will manipulate the system to their own ends, just check Derek Smiths' thread in NP&E on that scum sucking paedophile piece of garbage Cyril Smith if you have any doubt.
goldblum said:
I'm in favour of good policing as well, I've had enough run-ins with bad ones to know there's quite a few out there. Or there was. The fact we both want honest coppers doesn't change the fact that a dangerous driver managed to escape Scott-free and some on this thread seem to think this is overshadowed by the dishonesty of the policeman. In my view it's the other way round.
You think he got off scott free? Really? it is a £60 fine and 3 points against legal action that had massive risk and took over hi life for over a year.Many people just roll over and take what the bent copper throw at them, some fight a nobel cause to expose the b
ds.Bent coppers do NOTHING for the justice system they only make it weak and lose the public trust in it.
A bent copper can ruin just as many lives as a dangerous driver maybe even more.
Tango13 said:
I have fully comp insurance with covers me against bad/dangerous drivers.
You keep thinking that, Humpty Dumpty. I'm afraid not even all the kings horses and all the kings men will be able to put you back together again, though they might well replace your car.I'd sooner we removed bad/dangerous drivers from the roads, though I'm not convinced we really need to tolerate crooked coppers to do that.
NoNeed] said:
Bent coppers do NOTHING for the justice system they only make it weak and lose the public trust in it.
A bent copper can ruin just as many lives as a dangerous driver maybe even more.
Given the OP seems to want to omit key details and will not give the full details of the incident, and seems to have been found not guilty via an abuse of process by the police, I think it's one of those cases that there are faults on both sides...A bent copper can ruin just as many lives as a dangerous driver maybe even more.
carreauchompeur said:
To me, multiculturalism is all about breaking down barriers. Everyone's equal.
The monitoring form says to a subject "Here, put yourself in a box". Hence, I don't like it. And I don't like answering the question.
It's much like diversity monitoring when they ask you to define your sexuality. I don't think it's as straightforward as X, Y or Z, so I don't really like the question.
Self-defined ethnicity's a component, definitely, however in terms of blunt monitoring this could be just as easily achieved with the "officer defined ethnicity" box. Blunter, yes, but achieves the same aim of monitoring whether we're stopping a disproportionate number of BME people.
Are you white, and were you on the phone?
this,i would far rather we just defined everyone as "people" . The monitoring form says to a subject "Here, put yourself in a box". Hence, I don't like it. And I don't like answering the question.
It's much like diversity monitoring when they ask you to define your sexuality. I don't think it's as straightforward as X, Y or Z, so I don't really like the question.
Self-defined ethnicity's a component, definitely, however in terms of blunt monitoring this could be just as easily achieved with the "officer defined ethnicity" box. Blunter, yes, but achieves the same aim of monitoring whether we're stopping a disproportionate number of BME people.
Are you white, and were you on the phone?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff