Visit to Police Station. Advice please...

[zarjaz1991]

22Rgt said:

His school days were over years ago,why on earth would anyone call plod 'sir'??

Technically at the time of the incident I was not that long out of school, if you include sixth form, but I agree with you.

Mind you I d never call a police officer 'sir' even if I *was* still at school. Politeness doesn't extend that far for me.

[Centurion07]

stuttgartmetal said:

So
Twist and turns aside, the ops gotta drive reasonably for twelve months.
If he gets caught being naughty, his car is seized, but he can get it back after paying for the seizure

Off duty Bill put in a statement, along with others.

Suck it up.
It's done.

You're missing the point. He doesn't have to be caught doing ANYTHING to have his car seized, THAT'S what's so unfair about not only the S59 itself, but also WHY OP got his in the first place.

[dacouch]

git-r said:

With all the talk of corruption I couldn't help but post this video. Undercover filming of the police in action.

Quite saddening watching

It'd be reassuring for our p'heads bib to tell us that a lot has changed since this video was made.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jOlnhjDX30E

The police officer character in the Jonny Vegas sitcom "Ideal" appears to be based on true fact...

The video reminds me of a sargeant who used to drink in my local an play for out football team, he used to tell us what they get up to.

[stuttgartmetal]

Centurion07 said:

stuttgartmetal said:

So
Twist and turns aside, the ops gotta drive reasonably for twelve months.
If he gets caught being naughty, his car is seized, but he can get it back after paying for the seizure

Off duty Bill put in a statement, along with others.

Suck it up.
It's done.

You're missing the point. He doesn't have to be caught doing ANYTHING to have his car seized, THAT'S what's so unfair about not only the S59 itself, but also WHY OP got his in the first place.

No one said life is fair.
Just get out the other side of it
Keep his nose clean
Twelve months pass quicker than you think.

[DBRacingGod]

dacouch said:

git-r said:

With all the talk of corruption I couldn't help but post this video. Undercover filming of the police in action.

Quite saddening watching

It'd be reassuring for our p'heads bib to tell us that a lot has changed since this video was made.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jOlnhjDX30E

The police officer character in the Jonny Vegas sitcom "Ideal" appears to be based on true fact...

The video reminds me of a sargeant who used to drink in my local an play for out football team, he used to tell us what they get up to.

Oddly enough, Nina Hobson, the 'star' of the Dispatches/YouTube piece was roundly described as a provocateur at best and an instigator at worst of many of the incidents. Even the IPCC condemned her.
I'm sure everyone looked her up on t'interweb to get their facts straight before committing their opinions to the forum...

[carinaman]

stuttgartmetal said:

No one said life is fair.
Just get out the other side of it
Keep his nose clean
Twelve months pass quicker than you think.

It serves as a case study to others to use the services of a solicitor when they're invited to attend a police station for a 'chat'.

[Cooperman]

Hopefully not too much off topic, but what happens to the S59 if you sell the car to which is applied? Does the new owner have a big problem if stopped for an offence of any kind?

[Jewelly_Boy]

DBRacingGod said:

Even the IPCC condemned her.
...

Of course they would, she made all the Officers and CPS/IPCC look stupid and rightly so.

Some people join the Police to try and make a difference. Some do it because they were bummed by the local bully and hate the world.

[Variomatic]

stuttgartmetal said:

No one said life is fair.
Just get out the other side of it
Keep his nose clean
Twelve months pass quicker than you think.

You're also not getting the point.

Thanks to S.59 he can keep his nose as clean as he likes, but all the person who complained originally has to do is phone the police up again saying he's been driving like a yob and he can have his car seized on nothing more than that person's word. The car could even have been sitting in his garage at the time!

Then, when he pays to get it back, they can phone up again (possibly with a friend to corroborate this time) and have it seized again.

With no hearing, no appeal, and a large recovery fee each time it happens.

[BertBert]

Out of interest were that to happen, ie the person reporting it lies, have they perverted the course of justice?
Bert

[allergictocheese]

If they know they're telling porkies, yes.

[Variomatic]

Yes they are but, seeing as there's no provision to have a hearing regarding what happened, there's no way for them to be found out because there's no process for the driver's side (or any witnesses he might have) to be heard.

[mph1977]

zarjaz1991 said:

eldar said:

You do realise the Police are open to public scrutiny? You can apply to audit police custody, and turn up at any time, unannounced, demand entry, and ask people detained anything you like about their arrest/treatment in private? and escalate any dodgy goings on very high, very quickly?

Mmm. Try actually doing that.

A lot of my issues actually stemmed from doing precisely that....I complained about an officer, my complaint was upheld, and overnight I became a marked man. For a time, I literally could not drive locally without being stopped on some ludicrous pretence, or getting followed about by police vehicles.

The lesson actually is.....don't complain about the police. They will have you for it, one way or the other.

yet another immature idiot who thinks he knows it all ... and puts 2 and 2 together to get aobut 7 and a third...

are you not aware of the existance of Custody Visitors , and how st scared Supts and ACPO grade officers are of them ... becasue they will not hold back in criticising the (lackof) support given to front line officers ( most of the PCs - Inspectors are only scared of them if they are of the tiny minority of officers who are working bent) .

http://icva.org.uk/

[eldar]

mph1977 said:

yet another immature idiot who thinks he knows it all ... and puts 2 and 2 together to get aobut 7 and a third...

are you not aware of the existance of Custody Visitors , and how st scared Supts and ACPO grade officers are of them ... becasue they will not hold back in criticising the (lackof) support given to front line officers ( most of the PCs - Inspectors are only scared of them if they are of the tiny minority of officers who are working bent) .

http://icva.org.uk/

That's it Fascinating stuff, all human life is there. Some hilarious, mostly tragic. And I get a free lunch out of the PCC 2 or 3 times a year...

[XCP]

22Rgt said:

Zoobeef said:

answers "yes sir" and goes on their way.

His school days were over years ago,why on earth would anyone call plod 'sir'??

Americans used to a lot. Not so much from Brits.

[Bigends]

XCP said:

Americans used to a lot. Not so much from Brits.

Never ever expected to be called Sir - and never used to use it -unless addressing senior officers.

[BertBert]

Variomatic said:

Yes they are but, seeing as there's no provision to have a hearing regarding what happened, there's no way for them to be found out because there's no process for the driver's side (or any witnesses he might have) to be heard.

I think you are confusing two processes. Yes the S59 doesn't have a process for "debating" a case. However, if (through whatever means), plod had reason to investigate PCoJ, they would certainly have to. That reason could well be the driver making a complaint.

No idea if it would ever happen, but PCoJ is certainly not constrained by the why S9 works.

Bert

[Centurion07]

BertBert said:

Variomatic said:

Yes they are but, seeing as there's no provision to have a hearing regarding what happened, there's no way for them to be found out because there's no process for the driver's side (or any witnesses he might have) to be heard.

I think you are confusing two processes. Yes the S59 doesn't have a process for "debating" a case. However, if (through whatever means), plod had reason to investigate PCoJ, they would certainly have to. That reason could well be the driver making a complaint.

No idea if it would ever happen, but PCoJ is certainly not constrained by the why S9 works.

Bert

The difference being the victim would have to provide evidence other than "it wasn't me, I wasn't there", unlike the person making the original complaint.

[herewego]

Variomatic said:

stuttgartmetal said:

No one said life is fair.
Just get out the other side of it
Keep his nose clean
Twelve months pass quicker than you think.

You're also not getting the point.

Thanks to S.59 he can keep his nose as clean as he likes, but all the person who complained originally has to do is phone the police up again saying he's been driving like a yob and he can have his car seized on nothing more than that person's word. The car could even have been sitting in his garage at the time!

Then, when he pays to get it back, they can phone up again (possibly with a friend to corroborate this time) and have it seized again.

With no hearing, no appeal, and a large recovery fee each time it happens.

There were a lot of witnesses to whatever happened.

[turbobloke]

herewego said:

Variomatic said:

stuttgartmetal said:

No one said life is fair.
Just get out the other side of it
Keep his nose clean
Twelve months pass quicker than you think.

You're also not getting the point.

Thanks to S.59 he can keep his nose as clean as he likes, but all the person who complained originally has to do is phone the police up again saying he's been driving like a yob and he can have his car seized on nothing more than that person's word. The car could even have been sitting in his garage at the time!

Then, when he pays to get it back, they can phone up again (possibly with a friend to corroborate this time) and have it seized again.

With no hearing, no appeal, and a large recovery fee each time it happens.

There were a lot of witnesses to whatever happened.

There may not be for the second event. Only one would do, apparently, if BiB thought they were credible. Not sure whether credible but biased would come into it, or whether it would matter anyway.