Man arrested for moaning about running police car
Discussion
Mk3Spitfire said:
Totally down to the officer. The 999 button generally activated the blues, siren, and flashing headlights etc. 999 again at scene activates read reds etc. trafpol have a lot more options. But generally, blues and rear reds will stay on at RTC's, but general calls everything gets knocked off on/prior to arrival..if you have time.
Cool, cheers.Mk3Spitfire said:
Fastdruid said:
Bored of the Troll now.
It was actually a genuine question....but never mind then.I'm just giving an example of how a vehicle that's serviceable could be out of service for a weekend or over 48 hours if someone does a vehicle check before leaving the nick and finds a bulb out.
The comparison I could be making is cars can be 'dead' now due to a failed bulb and rules that say officers can't change them. It's pretty amusing when you see police pull someone over for a duff headlamp bulb and the driver goes to the boot gets a bulb and starts removing the inlet trunking to get access to the back of the headlamp. A member of the public fixing their car at the roadside doing something police officers aren't allowed to do in a police station car park because of the 'rules'.
La Liga said:
Eclassy said:
Criminal damage?! LMFAO
Another magiced up offence. Only in the Met
Is it not possible to damage a car with your hands or something? Another magiced up offence. Only in the Met
NFA so no evidence of criminal damage which any sensible person knows never occurred. Didnt the arresting policeman look for any signs of damage before arresting the frustrated man? If there was any damage on the car, even a slight crease surely this man would have been given a caution. The police even apologised which I think means they f
ked up.
I think the only thing that was damaged on the day was the policeman's ego.
Reminds me of this
http://youtu.be/jB43ogaaDVo
Overzealous policemen abusing their powers and making unnecessary thus unlawful arrests.
If it goes infront of a judge can these 2 arrests be deemed to have passed the necessity test? I think not. Not to mention the massive waste and diversion of resources on these type of sensless (I am da boss) arrests.
ked up.I think the only thing that was damaged on the day was the policeman's ego.
Reminds me of this
http://youtu.be/jB43ogaaDVo
Overzealous policemen abusing their powers and making unnecessary thus unlawful arrests.
If it goes infront of a judge can these 2 arrests be deemed to have passed the necessity test? I think not. Not to mention the massive waste and diversion of resources on these type of sensless (I am da boss) arrests.
Randomthoughts said:
La Liga said:
He wasn't arrested for moaning about a police car, he was arrested for hitting one.
If having them running is the cost of having a police unit attend 7 minutes earlier (or more, with the engine being cold otherwise) then I'd be much happier for that than rapists/murderers/thieves getting away.Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 1st August 09:09
tenpenceshort said:
Is it usual for a Police force to apologise for having made a lawful arrest?
What's the source of the apology? It wasn't in the police statement, which it would often be. It's from the man who was arrested. The one without an agenda of who feels wronged, of course. If there's an official complaint being investigated, why would an apology come before the conclusion of that, since that could be the outcome of a local resolution?
If they felt they'd unlawfully arrested, then there's the risk of civil liability. Why would they make any comment until a full legal assessment were made?
Eclassy said:
NFA so no evidence of criminal damage which any sensible person knows never occurred.
Not true. It may have been relatively minor (or one of many on a police car) and a decision was made it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute. The man may have been arrested for the attempt of the offence, too, where there would actually be any damage. Eclassy said:
If there was any damage on the car, even a slight crease surely this man would have been given a caution.
You have to admit the offence to receive a caution. La Liga said:
What's the source of the apology? It wasn't in the police statement, which it would often be. It's from the man who was arrested. The one without an agenda of who feels wronged, of course.
You're making assumptions. Evening Standard said:
"Mr McFadyen yesterday received an apology from his local station for his arrest...
...Last night, after Mr McFayden received an apology from the police for being handcuffed and fingerprinted for venting his anger over the issue"
There is nothing in the article to properly lead you to assume the victim is the sole source of the information. The Standard seems fairly happy to state the apology as being a fact....Last night, after Mr McFayden received an apology from the police for being handcuffed and fingerprinted for venting his anger over the issue"
There may be any number of reasons why he has received an apology already and without an accompanying press statement, including that procedure in issuing such apologies might not have been properly followed or that they wanted to keep their apology under the radar as far as possible or that the victim has already agreed not to take legal action against them, and so on.
The overriding impression is that the Met have been behaving unreasonably by leaving their cars running continually where they did and, when challenged about it, they improperly intimidated the victim.
Some on here will claim that the Police don't tend to behave like that, but then, time after time, we see and hear of abuses. That is not to say the Police are overly corrupt in principle, however neither are they unable or unlikely to be guilty of corrupt behaviour on occasion.
tenpenceshort said:
There is nothing in the article to properly lead you to assume the victim is the sole source of the information.
I thought it was in one of his quotes, but it's not. You're are of course right, there's nothing in the article to conclude that.tenpenceshort said:
There may be any number of reasons why he has received an apology already and without an accompanying press statement, including that procedure in issuing such apologies might not have been properly followed or that they wanted to keep their apology under the radar as far as possible or that the victim has already agreed not to take legal action against them, and so on.
tenpenceshort said:
That is not to say the Police are overly corrupt in principle, however neither are they unable or unlikely to be guilty of corrupt behaviour on occasion.
Perhaps so, but these are less likely and it's more likely to sits closer to normal. I'd have thought if the police knew they messed up they'd have gone defensive until they had a better idea of what was going to occur. tenpenceshort said:
The overriding impression is that the Met have been behaving unreasonably by leaving their cars running continually where they did and, when challenged about it, they improperly intimidated the victim.
"Challenged about it" i.e. hit one of the police cars. Anyone who strikes another vehicle leaves themselves open to ample reasonable suspicion for an arrest for damage / attempt damage. If you want to negate the risk of arrest, don't behave in a manner which can easily offer opportunities for reasonable suspicion. There are potential public order offences, too, depending on who is around. We may well be in the middle. Angry man hits police car in front of police officers which annoys them so they arrest him. There may have been alternative disposals available prior to the police station, but there were still enough grounds to justify detention and process via arrest.
It fundamentally still stands, if you go and hit a police car in front of police officers, you leave yourself amply open to lawful arrests. The best advice would be not to do it.
I believe I've found the solution
1. Easier to park
2. Suitable for low emission zones
3. Would win approval from the Warmist religion
4. Keeps police fit
5. Reduces fuel cost due to running on donut power
6. Doesn't have an engine to be left running
I give you the future of British policing
1. Easier to park
2. Suitable for low emission zones
3. Would win approval from the Warmist religion
4. Keeps police fit
5. Reduces fuel cost due to running on donut power
6. Doesn't have an engine to be left running
I give you the future of British policing
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff