Police Officer Smashes Windscreen

[Bigends]

V6Pushfit said:

e21Mark said:

So why does the driver start declaring himself not to be TJ?

Exactly

Right from the start he asks why hes been stopped.Listen to the video - the second cop says as he drags him out..'Get out of the car T.J . Driver says twice hes 'not T.J.' Followed by 'Whats your name..lets find out who you are then' Then asks him again for his name - indicates little or no conversation prior to the recording

Mad cop makes no mention of his name during the stop other than to say he wants him out of the car so he can check his details - indicates he hasnt already asked for them. Driver never states hes already given them to the cop. PNC check still comes back on the radio as provisional licence holder NOT disqualified driver. Mad cop says hes disqualified - second cop shouts hes a provisonal licence holder - a right old mess of a job. Odds are hes PNC checked who he thought the driver was at the point of stop or prior to the stop before checking- hope i'm wrong for his sake

Edited by Bigends on Sunday 25th September 19:32

Edited by Bigends on Sunday 25th September 19:38

[anonymous-user]

Do we have go over this again. This is the worst thread on here can't we spice it up a bit ?

[oilspill]

Uk society must rub off on the coppers to make some of them @@@@s

My recent experience with being stopped by Police is in Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy and theres quite a difference from what i remember in UK, mostly friendly, and professional in a more laid back way, very confident about doing things to the book. i.e no let offs, straightforward information then fined. .

the biggest tossers Ive come across in authority by along way are certain individual French, Danish and Englsih customs officers. Theres a nasty bit of work(female) down at Folkestone. Maybe they should swap jobs once in a whilst to show the customs @@@@s what real work is and give the Police a break.

[spookly]

vonhosen said:

spookly said:

XCP said:

I have idea how old you are but I wonder if you would be surprised to hear that officers nowadays are much better and more professional than they were when I joined in 1980?
At that time there was much more violence dished out, and much more racism and homophobia. Of course in those days the likelihood of anyone filming an interaction with the police was virtually nil, so there are no youtube archives to back up my claim.
Nevertheless attitudes towards the public have improved immensely since those days.

You may well be right that there is less violence dished out. Or maybe not, who knows.
Everything would be anecdotal except statistics, which won't be comprehensive either as many examples of bad policing are not reported.

Increasing IPCC complaints doesn't point towards an improvement. Especially when 20% or so relate to bad attitude/heavy handedness.
60% increase in complaints over 10 years doesn't really sound like an improvement.

It doesn't show the opposite either, because it's entirely possible that it may just show greater confidence in reporting due to it being taken more seriously & actually investigated (just as an increase in rape allegations doesn't mean there are now more offences, again just greater confidence in the service being provided promoting more people reporting them).

Yep, which is why I edited it to add something to this effect before I saw you had wrote this.

However, a 60% increase in 10 years still does not look good.

[singlecoil]

spookly said:

However, a 60% increase in 10 years still does not look good.

A policeman walking down the street would not look good to you.

[spookly]

singlecoil said:

spookly said:

However, a 60% increase in 10 years still does not look good.

A policeman walking down the street would not look good to you.

That is quite a dumb thing to say.

There is a wide gulf between a policeman smashing an innocent persons car and screaming at them, and a policeman just walking down the street.
I object to the former, not the latter.

If the best you can do to try and argue is to try and paint me as someone who hates all police then you should probably just wind your neck in. I have clearly said I don't think all police are bad, but that we badly need to see the back of the ones that are bad. Is that so hard for you to comprehend?

If you are having to resort to a really weak attempt at character assassination I guess you've already lost any argument. You really should try and read what people write without such a cognitive bias that you think everyone is directly criticising you.

[anonymous-user]

Is he innocent? If so why didn't he comply?

[oilspill]

V6Pushfit said:

Is he innocent? If so why didn't he comply?

scared to get out? Not so much getting a beating, but your word against theres puts me off.

This copper has also had a good go at Black moped rider.

[vonhosen]

spookly said:

vonhosen said:

spookly said:

XCP said:

I have idea how old you are but I wonder if you would be surprised to hear that officers nowadays are much better and more professional than they were when I joined in 1980?
At that time there was much more violence dished out, and much more racism and homophobia. Of course in those days the likelihood of anyone filming an interaction with the police was virtually nil, so there are no youtube archives to back up my claim.
Nevertheless attitudes towards the public have improved immensely since those days.

You may well be right that there is less violence dished out. Or maybe not, who knows.
Everything would be anecdotal except statistics, which won't be comprehensive either as many examples of bad policing are not reported.

Increasing IPCC complaints doesn't point towards an improvement. Especially when 20% or so relate to bad attitude/heavy handedness.
60% increase in complaints over 10 years doesn't really sound like an improvement.

It doesn't show the opposite either, because it's entirely possible that it may just show greater confidence in reporting due to it being taken more seriously & actually investigated (just as an increase in rape allegations doesn't mean there are now more offences, again just greater confidence in the service being provided promoting more people reporting them).

Yep, which is why I edited it to add something to this effect before I saw you had wrote this.

However, a 60% increase in 10 years still does not look good.

As I said, unless you believe it shows increased confidence in accountability & therefore increased reporting, because then it is a positive thing & that headline 60% figure reveals nothing about whether the source problem has actually increased or not.

[anonymous-user]

oilspill said:

scared to get out? Not so much getting a beating, but your word against theres puts me off.

This copper has also had a good go at Black moped rider.

I doubt the first two and he didn't know about the third

[Bigends]

Right from the start he asks why hes been stopped.Listen to the video - the second cop says as he drags him out..'Get out of the car T.J . Driver says twice hes 'not T.J.' Followed by 'Whats your name..lets find out who you are then' Then asks him again for his name - indicates little or no conversation prior to the recording

Mad cop makes no mention of his name during the stop other than to say he wants him out of the car so he can check his details - indicates he hasnt already asked for them. Driver never states hes already given them to the cop. PNC check still comes back on the radio as provisional licence holder NOT disqualified driver. Mad cop says hes disqualified - second cop shouts hes a provisonal licence holder - a right old mess of a job. Odds are hes PNC checked who he thought the driver was at the point of stop or prior to the stop before checking- hope i'm wrong for his sake

[singlecoil]

spookly said:

singlecoil said:

spookly said:

However, a 60% increase in 10 years still does not look good.

A policeman walking down the street would not look good to you.

That is quite a dumb thing to say.

There is a wide gulf between a policeman smashing an innocent persons car and screaming at them, and a policeman just walking down the street...

What identifies you as a person with an aversion to the police is not so much what you say about good v. bad cops, it's the way you are willing to condemn the policeman we are talking about before you have all the facts. You are, to use a current expression, quacking like a duck and walking like a duck. As are several others on this thread, despite their insistence that they are not ducks.

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

it's the way you are willing to condemn the policeman we are talking about before you have all the facts.

So please enlighten us, what facts to you would it be ok for PC Savage to start acting like a start raving lunatic?

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

What identifies you as a person with an aversion to the police is not so much what you say about good v. bad cops, it's the way you are willing to condemn the policeman we are talking about before you have all the facts. You are, to use a current expression, quacking like a duck and walking like a duck. As are several others on this thread, despite their insistence that they are not ducks.

That's what we've said all along.
Apart from the duck bit but that's a good analogy

[Alpinestars]

singlecoil said:

What identifies you as a person with an aversion to the police is not so much what you say about good v. bad cops, it's the way you are willing to condemn the policeman we are talking about before you have all the facts. You are, to use a current expression, quacking like a duck and walking like a duck. As are several others on this thread, despite their insistence that they are not ducks.

And all along you've taken the opposite view, why? You keep insisting he had the legal right to ask the guy to get out of the car. Yet you can't prove it and have ignored all the statute that has been put forward. Why?

Why do you think PC has been put on restricted duties and is being investigated? Because he acted within the law, or because there's a chance he didn't?

[spookly]

singlecoil said:

spookly said:

singlecoil said:

spookly said:

However, a 60% increase in 10 years still does not look good.

A policeman walking down the street would not look good to you.

That is quite a dumb thing to say.

There is a wide gulf between a policeman smashing an innocent persons car and screaming at them, and a policeman just walking down the street...

What identifies you as a person with an aversion to the police is not so much what you say about good v. bad cops, it's the way you are willing to condemn the policeman we are talking about before you have all the facts. You are, to use a current expression, quacking like a duck and walking like a duck. As are several others on this thread, despite their insistence that they are not ducks.

Try learning to read. I've said several times that I think what is needed is a transparent investigation, not a lynching by internet warriors.

But regardless of what comes of the investigation, with the attitude shown I do not think he should be a police officer. I personally, regardless of whether he manages to justify his outburst or not, do not want to see officers who lose it like that. Luckily for the public, I don't believe most police officers do behave like that.

[vonhosen]

Alpinestars said:

Why do you think PC has been put on restricted duties and is being investigated? Because he acted within the law, or because there's a chance he didn't?

He is being investigated because of an allegation & is on restricted duties because of the nature of the allegation.
Those facts say nothing about whether he did in fact act within the law or not. The purpose of the investigation is to determine that, amongst other things. No guilt can be inferred due to the fact he is being investigated or on restricted duties, it's par for the course with such an allegation.

[anonymous-user]

Alpinestars said:

Why do you think PC has been put on restricted duties and is being investigated? Because he acted within the law, or because there's a chance he didn't?

You're seeing all sorts of things that aren't there

[Alpinestars]

vonhosen said:

He is being investigated because of an allegation & is on restricted duties because of the nature of the allegation.
Those facts say nothing about whether he did in fact act within the law or not. The purpose of the investigation is to determine that, amongst other things. No guilt can be inferred due to the fact he is being investigated or on restricted duties, it's par for the course with such an allegation.

Whilst the question was aimed at Singlecoil who insists the PC has the right to demand that the driver gets out of the car, but has yet to corroborate that with the relevant law, is your post fact or your view? Is this the normal course of action or does it only happen in certain circumstances? If the former, what's specific about this case?

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

spookly said:

vonhosen said:

spookly said:

XCP said:

I have idea how old you are but I wonder if you would be surprised to hear that officers nowadays are much better and more professional than they were when I joined in 1980?
At that time there was much more violence dished out, and much more racism and homophobia. Of course in those days the likelihood of anyone filming an interaction with the police was virtually nil, so there are no youtube archives to back up my claim.
Nevertheless attitudes towards the public have improved immensely since those days.

You may well be right that there is less violence dished out. Or maybe not, who knows.
Everything would be anecdotal except statistics, which won't be comprehensive either as many examples of bad policing are not reported.

Increasing IPCC complaints doesn't point towards an improvement. Especially when 20% or so relate to bad attitude/heavy handedness.
60% increase in complaints over 10 years doesn't really sound like an improvement.

It doesn't show the opposite either, because it's entirely possible that it may just show greater confidence in reporting due to it being taken more seriously & actually investigated (just as an increase in rape allegations doesn't mean there are now more offences, again just greater confidence in the service being provided promoting more people reporting them).

Yep, which is why I edited it to add something to this effect before I saw you had wrote this.

However, a 60% increase in 10 years still does not look good.

As I said, unless you believe it shows increased confidence in accountability & therefore increased reporting, because then it is a positive thing & that headline 60% figure reveals nothing about whether the source problem has actually increased or not.

Yep, it's much easier to report and the encouragement to report is greater than it's ever been.

Using two data points and comparing the % change without any context is highly limited. There have been multiple changes to the recording methodology over those years. Off the top of my head this includes allowing third party reports where previously only the person directly involved could complain, wider recording definitions, multiple complaints recorded from an individual (i.e. neglect of duty and unlawful arrest are recorded as two, whereas previously they'd be recorded as one), BTP data being included where it wasn't previously, better / more consistent recording practice across forces etc etc.