Visit to Police Station. Advice please...

[WinstonWolf]

PLEASEDELETE said:

Dibble said:

PLEASEDELETE, I've offered you a few options for posting the details of the trial, with which you seem so intimately acquainted. You've declined to do so, and obviously have no intention of doing so, so I'll leave it there.

Similarly, I don't intend to justify my decision NOT to publish my details on the Internet or send you a PM from my usual email account. As I said, if you can't work out the reasons why, that's your issue.

Dibble old chap despite an undertone of really unjustifiable hostility in your responses you will certainly get your invite. And yes I'm very close to the case as I'm a party on whom it impacts. Even counsel thinks it's 'very interesting' (albeit in terms of its points of law rather than of fact) which has helped to raise the level of focus he's giving to it. If you let me know who I'm dealing with I'll send you the details. If you won't, and it seems you won't, then I'll send them to you anyway, but only very close to the time of trial.

I can certainly understand your desire to avoid openly revealing personal details on a forum. Harder 'tho' to understand your reluctance to be so privately protective. You must be concerned that I'd abuse them. But what basis would you have for that concern? You don't know anything about me. Never met me or had dealings with me in your life. So am I to assume it's a personal thing? Or is this the attitude you customarily hold to everyone who wants your details?
That isn't wholly healthy, never mind practical, is it?

I'm not anti-police. In fact in one of my roles I'm fairly frequently called on to help them gather investigatory evidence. But that's also given me first hand insight into negative policing which I'm afraid isn't at all 'a few rotten apples'. Sorry if that offends you. In fact it isn't about being a 'rotten apple' it's about fairly plainly decent men and women being morally bent in how they've been encouraged to see and enact their role. A fairly senior lawyer friend of mine, now elevated to the judiciary, calls it 'social engineering'. Things to him have changed and not for the better. Evidence now replaced by "intel". And in his opinion (and he's now a sitting judge) what the police call 'high quality intel' was more frequently what he would describe as 'gossip'. Blah blah blah.

Anyway, you shall have your invite towards the end of March. I should also say that counsel cannot really predict how long this trial will run. Anything from an hour to a month is the best he can say which obviously isn't very helpful.

.

[Bonefish Blues]

OP, taking you at your word, I too would be upset in this situation (more upset than you seem to be, perhaps).

I think I would be having an initial conversation with one of the specialist motoring solicitors' practices v-a-v your options in this situation as on the face of it it does seem an inappropriate use of this particular power. I would be aggrieved it had been used on the basis of a third party report without my having had the opportunity to put my side of events, especially as at least one of the "facts" seemed to change pretty quickly.

[zarjaz1991]

Bent stuff? I think not.
I've been told it doesn't happen, and I'm just an immature 22 year old with no experience of life, etc.
This is clearly correct and the police are beyond reproach.

[Elroy Blue]

PLEASEDELETE said:

Regularly I watch (and assist) CID collating evidence

Edited by PLEASEDELETE on Thursday 1st January 10:46

Course you do.

[mph1977]

zarjaz1991 said:

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/

What's any of that got to do with what I posted?

given it was in answer to the rubbish you posted in reply to Eldar talking aobut the existence of Custody Visitors ...

Edited by mph1977 on Thursday 1st January 20:36

[Elroy Blue]

PLEASEDELETE said:

It's a bit more than that. I am legally OBLIGED to provide the assistance. But what am I missing? Is that a problem to you? Lots of people are obliged to assist police enquiry. Often enough it's a legal requirement and condition of their occupation. Is that an attitude I see poking out, porky? Why wouldn't someone legally obliged to assist police on request do so? Perhaps it's not beyond you to see how that close contact throws up observations of iffy attitudes and conducts, as well as lots of straightforward too. Is THAT a problem? I'm obliged to help police further their work. But I'm not a policeman. I'm not bound by a code of silence official or unofficial that obliges me not to mention dodgy activity when I see and hear it. Is THAT a problem? Because it seems to me you've GOT a problem. So why not air it?

Spade, hole , digging.

You're very entertaining. I suggest you Google a bit more legal stuff, then you can come up with some Jackanory stories about the NCA, MI5 and any other organisation you 'help'.

[eldar]

PLEASEDELETE said:

I'm glad you found it entertaining, tho' I can't altogether agree. Closer to reality I think you and other 'bad attitude plod' who haunt this forum find my content offensive. Largely because part of the bad attitude you share is an over defensive paranoia mixed up with the same kind of 'loyalty to the profession'
we read from apologist bankers when faced with statements of wrongdoing. Sensitive to your 'issues' I decided to withdraw my posts. But you (and the others) want to keep it going and going and going.

You're being drawn out and played. You can be made to respond and you can be made to give full flower illustration of your attitudes and mores. And it's not pleasant and it's not good that you aren't more closely psychologically profiled by your own profession and given appropriate remedial attention.

Conversely there are many police with quite a different attitude. Quite rightly, with 'controversial' subjects they adopt a very sensible approach. They ignore it. Make no response. Keep the higher moral ground. And out of respect for that attitude I would prefer to delete my posts. They aren't helping anything anyway.

These recent ones will be deleted later. You should alert your colleague and make sure he does as he did before and resurrects them. WHY he does it isn't clear, but it's not for any positive reason. And he is the most easily led one of you all and really does need reporting to whoever screens out the attitude problems in HQ.

Not surprisingly all the keyboard war cops turn very coy when asked to reveal a detail or two. But supposing it's to be made official. I don't like your attitude. And I'm asking you to identify yourself so that I can report it. Do it by PM. Unless of course you think you've something to hide.

Well?

You've made a highly improper suggestion, namely that I approach a serving member of the justiciary of my acquaintance and request he seeks to influence a senior policeman. I don't see a smiley so I take it you're serious. Don't think that should be allowed to pass unreported, do you?

Well, Mr Bully?

(I'm off to lunch now)

To use your questioning technique, may I ask if you've stopped buggering sheep yet?

[Centurion07]

Elroy Blue said:

PLEASEDELETE said:

It's a bit more than that. I am legally OBLIGED to provide the assistance. But what am I missing? Is that a problem to you? Lots of people are obliged to assist police enquiry. Often enough it's a legal requirement and condition of their occupation. Is that an attitude I see poking out, porky? Why wouldn't someone legally obliged to assist police on request do so? Perhaps it's not beyond you to see how that close contact throws up observations of iffy attitudes and conducts, as well as lots of straightforward too. Is THAT a problem? I'm obliged to help police further their work. But I'm not a policeman. I'm not bound by a code of silence official or unofficial that obliges me not to mention dodgy activity when I see and hear it. Is THAT a problem? Because it seems to me you've GOT a problem. So why not air it?

Spade, hole , digging.

You're very entertaining. I suggest you Google a bit more legal stuff, then you can come up with some Jackanory stories about the NCA, MI5 and any other organisation you 'help'.

Careful now. He's probably got some dirt on all you bent coppers on PH.

[Elroy Blue]

PLEASEDELETE said:

You've made a highly improper suggestion, namely that I approach a serving member of the justiciary of my acquaintance and request he seeks to influence a senior policeman. I don't see a smiley so I take it you're serious. Don't think that should be allowed to pass unreported, do you?

Well, Mr Bully?

(I'm off to lunch now)

This is just comedy gold. Once you've chatted to your Judge friend and he's seen the Chief Constable, why don't you nip down to N0 10 to see your other mate the Prime Minister. I'm sure he'll take it up for you. Or you could just report it to the head of MI5 when you're doing investigative work for them. (Failing that, pass it on to Carniaman. He writes lots of letters to everybody. I'm sure he'll help)

[Greendubber]

This threads got it all.

As for Police credibility in court which according to Pleasedelete? doesn't exist any more....

I've given evidence in 4 large cases recently and on each occasion I have been thanked and commended by the judge (crown) and the mags despite the defence trying their best to trip me up. I also had a coroners inquest with a jury too....and guess what.... praise from the bench.

But hey, the courts hate the old bill by all accounts.

[anonymous-user]

PLEASEDELETE said:

Is this YOUR version of 'crying wee wee wee'

No, it's my way of asking you how the defence is going to break all the disclosure rules in the manner you've implied / suggested. You've delved into the "technical" aspect, feel free to answer my points.

PLEASEDELETE said:

So, notwithstanding this unforgivable thread hijack, how does court set about reassuring the businessman that his witness isn't going to be the inspiration of grim retribution from other shiny apples?

It's fine, all the officers will be sacked after the melodramatic barrister does his TV thing.

allergictocheese said:

If you had evidence of serious and systemic bad faith on behalf of the investigating officers, you'd be making an abuse of process application (on the basis it would not be fair to try the defendant). If you had the evidence in hand prior to trial, the application would be heard beforehand (no jury is required for an abuse hearing).

Seeming the result of a successful abuse application can be that the case is stayed, never to be reinstated, never to be tried, it's not the kind of thing you would sit on until trial.

Quite.

PLEASEDELETE said:

The malicious police conduct isn't even a hugely significant part of the defence.

From what you describe it'd be easily enough to stop a trial taking place.

PLEASEDELETE said:

The prosecution case has been described as 'so wafer thin it is almost invisible'.

Half time application then?

PLEASEDELETE said:

IF any misconducts are to have serious impact on the case the trial or their outcome then they will have no less impact if they are revealed DURING trial.

How does that tie in with the defence statement and the disclosure rules?

allergictocheese said:

To be fair to you, it doesn't sound like you have access to the full facts, as a competent criminal barrister wouldn't act in the way you describe if they had the evidence you say they have in hand.

I think you're being overly kind to his make-it-up-as-you-go-along BS routine.

PLEASEDELETE said:

There was a time when merely being a policeman added great strength and credibility to evidence in court. Now? Why don't you go along to a criminal court and watch. Or ask on here. They'll tell you. Not many pro-police judges left are there? Or juries. We've all had it up to the neck with the 'occasional bad apple' nonsense. Now it's just a game and police and defendants play their roles. No more no less.

Not in my experience of giving evidence lots of times. Although that is in the real world.

Dibble said:

PLEASEDELETE, I've offered you a few options for posting the details of the trial, with which you seem so intimately acquainted. You've declined to do so, and obviously have no intention of doing so, so I'll leave it there.

Called his bluff and he's backed down. There's a surprise...

[Variomatic]

PLEASEDELETE said:

Dibble said:

I might. I've got some leave I need to use, so I'd consider it. If you tell us when/where/who it is. A "sorta 'put your money' etc challenge"...

Do telll.

Sure, not a problem. Post us your details and I'll send you what you need.

No need to post full details.

Just let us know the court, the date and the case ref / defendant's name - all of which is public info anyway. In fact, een te defendant details are probably optional, having the right court and date will probably be enough given the fireworks that'll be going of in the court room when Counsel unleash their secret evidence

I'm sure there are some in the PH massive who could find time to go and sit in the public gallery for a day out

[Variomatic]

PLEASEDELETE said:

----complete and irrelevant subject change----

So, date, Court and defendant's name please? This info is in the public domain anyway, so there's absolutely no justification for not giving it.

In fact, seeing as the very reason for such information being public is to allow random people to turn up and see that justice is done openly and without bias, by giving the details you'll be helping to ensure that the system works as it should

[Greendubber]

PLEASEDELETE said:

(Ps: Why ARE they so scared of PM'ing their real world details? Don't they know it's done all the time on social network sites) ?

Edited by PLEASEDELETE on Thursday 1st January 18:31

You really have to ask?

If you think I'd be sending my personal details to someone like you then you're more of an idiot than I first thought.

[Greendubber]

Variomatic said:

So, date, Court and defendant's name please? This info is in the public domain anyway, so there's absolutely no justification for not giving it.

In fact, seeing as the very reason for such information being public is to allow random people to turn up and see that justice is done openly and without bias, by giving the details you'll be helping to ensure that the system works as it should

Hard to give details of a fictional case I guess.

[Variomatic]

Greendubber said:

Hard to give details of a fictional case I guess.

Agreed, but seeing as this really really happened he should have no problem providing them

[anonymous-user]

PLEASEDELETE said:

Do you see what other posters mean when they say 'don't go near the place without a solicitor'

Nearly every officer who contributes to a topic where that may be a relevant suggests that. But you'd know that if you read them and didn't make assumptions.

The rest if your post is going on the attack, in a manner only you find amusing, because you're unable to answer the points and questions raised.

What did you expect? To come here and write non-sense and not get challenged?

[zarjaz1991]

mph1977 said:

given it was in answer to the rubbish youre posted in reply to Eldar talking aobut the existenance of Custody Visitors ...

This is barely English and I'm still not entirely sure what you're jumping at.

[zarjaz1991]

PLEASEDELETE said:

So there you have it, children! A few pages taking you through an internet virtual online Visit to a Police Station for a chat with Uncle Plod. That gives you a really very good idea of what you're likely to encounter if you just decide (like the now wishing-he-hadn't op) to take up the invitation. Nice friendly even handed unbiased open minded types aren't they! Lolol!! Do you see what other posters mean when they say 'don't go near the place without a solicitor' or "don't say anything except No Comment".

Okay we've drawn out the screwy ones. Certainly all male, probably all white, and doubtless middle aged low ranking bad breathed and in failed relationships. And of course there are many policemen who wouldn't be seen dead joining in the type of commentary illustrated in the last few pages…….

Anyway, that's a Visit to the Police Station laid out as clearly as can be. So remember, make sensible choices when you get that dreaded invite!

Evenin' ole!

(Ps: Why ARE they so scared of PM'ing their real world details? Don't they know it's done all the time on social network sites) ?

Edited by PLEASEDELETE on Thursday 1st January 19:59

Ummm... I am one of those making the case for not trusting the police, and I have to say you do talk some utter rot.

You have effectively destroyed this thread, which at one point was a pretty even handed discussion on the corruption, or lack of it, in the police service generally. There's little point me arguing my case now, as I'm just going to be lumped in with your own hysterical and fantasy-world comments, so well done on that at least.

And no, no serving police officer, corrupt or not, should PM you his personal details. Nor should anyone else for that matter.

[Red Devil]

It seems quite a few folk have forgotten that the next school term hasn't started yet...