Police error, complaint upheld, doing me anyway! Defend?!
Discussion
fluffnik said:
I trust the lying officer is to be dismissed and prosecuted.
it rarely happens in cases of minor motoring offences . it is something i cannot comprehend,whereby someone that is required to tell the truth under oath in the course of their job can tell lies and still be in that job.being honest is fundamental to the job.been in the very same situation where they lied in a written statement,were proven to have lied and all that happened was the case was dropped.thegoose said:
Everyone seems to have missed the point. They don't care that I wasn't in the process of making or receiving a phone call.
I am amazed that everyone thinks it's OK for the police to decide for themselves whether they follow procedures or ignore them, and then go one further and deliberately make up false responses.
They dont think its ok - and by your own statement - the officer has been reprimanded for the mistakes they made. Seems fair enough.I am amazed that everyone thinks it's OK for the police to decide for themselves whether they follow procedures or ignore them, and then go one further and deliberately make up false responses.
So the question then comes to - does the fact that the officer made these mistakes in anyway absolve you of the crime you committed.
I could understand it if the mistake had a direct influence on the punishment handed down or the crime you were accused of (i.e. you were punished more harshly than you should have been been - or accused of a crime you didn't actually commit) - however neither of these things seem to apply in your case. The information recorded was supplementary information unrelated to the crime and/or punishment.
goldblum said:
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.I expect you'd agree that handset ownership and use continues to increase. If handset use while driving caused collisions, as you assert, then the stats would show an increase in collisions year on year.
They don't - so it would seem that, while your 'mountains of studies' may show that using a phone creates distraction, it would seem that it isn't creating more collisions.
Zuffen said:
ou 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.
You and Goldblum keep making an assumption here - "using a mobile phone = dangerous driving".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.
Shame the collision stats don't seem to back up that lazy assumption.
goldblum said:
Also the danger is the OP doesn't consider his escape seriously enough and sees his Pyrrhic victory as a green light for continuing to use his phone whilst driving. It's no longer a question of whether the stereo, talking to a passenger or using the phone is more dangerous than the other - a plethora of studies show a far stronger mental disconnect when using the phone than with other distractions.
Sadly, I suspect that it was the OP's hubris that carried him to court, and his hubris will see him continue to use his phone whilst driving.
Imagination and psychology. Not a good mix.Sadly, I suspect that it was the OP's hubris that carried him to court, and his hubris will see him continue to use his phone whilst driving.
goldblum said:
He's a small time trader with an interest in racing Porches. He uses his phone whilst he drives. I sincerely hope if he does it again he's caught and prosecuted as fully as possible.
If you continue to post stuff like that, one of these days somebody is going to sue the arse off you.goldblum said:
Timsta said:
Nevertheless, police shouldn't fabricate evidence.
Not bothered in this instance too much TBH Fabrication of evidence doesn't bother you provided it gets a result you approve of.
You actively condone PtCoJ.
Disgraceful.
fluffnik said:
Hol said:
Were you actually using the phone whilst driving??
Unimportant in the great scheme of things, he has exposed dishonest police, for which we should all be grateful.He was using his phone, he was caught.
His lawyer knew he was 100% guilty of phone use, but was able to use the coppers lie to quash a genuine conviction.
Fliffnik does not like the Police
Rovinghawk said:
goldblum said:
Timsta said:
Nevertheless, police shouldn't fabricate evidence.
Not bothered in this instance too much TBH Fabrication of evidence doesn't bother you provided it gets a result you approve of.
You actively condone PtCoJ.
Disgraceful.
Moonhawk said:
There are probably better ways to teach them, than letting people off with crimes.
How? Imprisoning the officer for perjury? When that happens I might support convicting the phone user, but to punish the (AISI) lesser offender & let the greater offender not even face trial is unacceptable.
Moonhawk said:
CoolHands said:
That's a good thing then - it teaches the police not to lie.
There are probably better ways to teach them, than letting people off with crimes.All liars must be purged from the police if it is to retain credibility.
Eclassy said:
What crime? using a mobile while driving? Hardly the greatest 'crime' of the century. A policeman lying to get a conviction is a 100 times worse than a motorist using a mobile phone.
You ask "what crime?" - then go on to define the crime?I didn't comment on the relative severity of the crime(s) - so you comment is irrelevant to my point.
Rovinghawk said:
How? Imprisoning the officer for perjury?
When that happens I might support convicting the phone user, but to punish the (AISI) lesser offender & let the greater offender not even face trial is unacceptable.
Possibly.When that happens I might support convicting the phone user, but to punish the (AISI) lesser offender & let the greater offender not even face trial is unacceptable.
Did I say it was acceptable for the "greater offender" to not even face trial. My point was simply that letting the person off with a crime they have committed is not a suitable way to "teach the police a lesson".
I didn't make any comment on what punishment the police officer should or should not face.
Moonhawk said:
My point was simply that letting the person off with a crime they have committed........
The evidence of that crime being heavily tainted by the fact that the prosecution case is based on the word of a proven liar. The law involves 'beyond reasonable doubt'; if you won't accept that part of the law, how can you demand another part of the law being applied to use of a phone?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff