Essex police - inane idiots
Discussion
princeperch said:
My views on speed cameras are well documented on the couple of years ive been hanging around here so im not having a "dig"...
but im interested to find out where you read/heard/got told speed limits were never intended to be enforced 100%? or did you mean they should only be enforced where it is appropriate and serves a usefull purpose?
I mean, its either a hard law where it can and should be enforced or a soft law where its persuasive, innit?
Ergo, we shouldnt be having a dig at the officers involved or indeed chaps like MC, we should be aiming to change the law as their master, as the police will work with the power they have been given, and unfortunatly when you end up with semi-petty minded officers they will use the power they have bestowed upon them - be it either correctly or incorrectly!
I have not heard or read it anywhere. It is simply a statement of fact. Laws are passed so they can be enforced. They are measures that are meant to be useful tools for the police and the CPS to use in imposing the will of the majority rule. There was never any need for speed limits until sufficient numbers of people transgressed common sense. Even then the sledgehammer to crack a nut was, at the time appropriate. The points system was also appropriate, but none of this was ever planned for an environment where 100% enforcement was possible. The laws banning marajuana making it an illegal drug have been softened recently for the simple reason that too many users exist to ever make enforcement possible. Its still an illegal and very dangerous drug, yet the mindless liberal elite have chosen to downgrade the imposition on the general public. In contrast the emergence of technology has made the effectiveness of speed resrtictions absolute in some areas. This was clearly never the intention of the common sense reality of those who passed the laws, ergo who the hell gave the current political trash permession to change the law?
mg6b said:
Ultimately, giving a ticket for this sort of thing is as childish as the gesture in question. I'm suprised that the pettiness didn't extend to a summons for 'not being in proper control of the vehicle'. It's the kind of sad, unimaginative policing that does no favours to the good coppers out there.
Thats your opinion. Mine is thankfully different. I work in "the industry." When you have done so for a while, your opinion may well be different too!
INDUSTRY !!
well said ?!
that is all the police are now isn't it??
antispeed said:
Ultimately, giving a ticket for this sort of thing is as childish as the gesture in question. I'm suprised that the pettiness didn't extend to a summons for 'not being in proper control of the vehicle'. It's the kind of sad, unimaginative policing that does no favours to the good coppers out there.
Thats your opinion. Mine is thankfully different. I work in "the industry." When you have done so for a while, your opinion may well be different too!
INDUSTRY !!
well said ?!
that is all the police are now isn't it??
Indeed traffic police should be scrapped, they serve no useful purpose at all now.
Big Fat F'er said:
Ah, the sensible voice of reason has arrived
The sensible voice of reason, who calls himself A Narchist? Nice one, mg6b.
A.Narchist - it's a (pretty feeble I admit) attempt at humour, not to be taken too seriously. Just to help you along I'll explain it slowly, so you can follow....it's a bit of a joke, see. It's taking the word Anarchist, and making it into a name. There, not too hard is it.
Oh god, the style of mg6b is spreading like a bad American buzzword.....
Yes, I know...I was jesting, too.
Big Fat F'er said:
However, it does describe how I lived my younger days (and to some degree even now). One thing was different back then; people just got on with it, and didn't come on here crying about it.
Holy kipper....that's the whole point of this thread. Don't you think those two plods should have "just got on with it" and not been so petty...?
Big Fat F'er said:
The main problem with this finger flinger is that he got caught, and doesn't like it. But he can't take it, he runs off crying to his mates, and instead of telling him to grow up, you stick up for him. You should be laughing at him for being such a cry baby.
No, I congratulate him for exposing institutional stupidity. The more people do this, the more likely the law will be changed. If it's not, how far do you think some of them will go....refer back to the ealier comment about Inspector Rowan Atkinson and his looking at me in a funny way charge.
Big Fat F'er said:
In the old days, when we got caught (and ended up in court) we laughed at all the numpties living scared and not being brave enough to take on 'those in charge'. But we didn't worry about the BiB, that's what they were paid for. They did their job, we did ours, sometimes they won, sometimes we did.
You really were a bloody nuisance in the good old days, weren't you, you Big Fat F'er...?
You don't really need those badges of honour, do you..?
Big Fat F'er said:
yours sincerely
S.Ocialist (p.s. that's a joke an' all, numpty).
Yes, thanks...I guessed.
flemke said:
The main problem with this finger flinger is that he got caught, and doesn't like it. But he can't take it, he runs off crying to his mates, and instead of telling him to grow up, you stick up for him. You should be laughing at him for being such a cry baby.
BFF,
The issue isn't whether the flinger was a man or a mouse for "crying to his mates", after he behaved in such a way as to induce punishment. No one cares about his reaction - that's up to him.
Correct, it is up to him. I'm saying that he took a conscious decision to do something that he knew to be 'wrong', then there's a big outrage when he gets done. If I remember correctly, it has ALWAYS been 'wrong' to give the finger to the Old Bill, and folk have ALWAYS got done for it. It's not new, they haven't just started. Me and my mates were getting done for this 40 years ago, it's nothing new.
flemke said:
We do care about whether authorities exploit or even abuse the law in order to intimidate people of whose behaviour they happen to disapprove. The cameristas involved in this particular sorry episode did not even limit themselves to "crying to their mates" because they were offended - they have attempted to bring the force of the state down on the "offender's" head. This is an violation of common sense, an abuse of power, and a ludicrous waste of precious police resources.
In your opinion. Yes, I accept your opinion, and your right to it, but it's still an opinion. You (by you I mean them!) bang on and on about 'respect' blah blah blah. So, what respect did the guy give. Assuming at 41 he's married (it's quite likely) how is he bringing up the kids. Look at Daddy, giving the finger. Or if they weren't in the car, does his attitude extend into other areas. Probably. You keep shouting off about respect, well demand it's given then.
flemke said:
We care about this as a matter of principle in a country in which people theoretically have the right to express themselves as they see fit. We also care in this specific case about the extension of the tentacles of the "Speed Kills" tyranny - a self-serving sham for which citizens never voted, which defies logical analysis, and which is frequently run in violation of its rules of operation.
Sorry about this, but I dont believe you. I dont think you do care as a matter of principle. Let me explain, as an Anarchist (I had to get it in).
Experience shows there are three rules that support 'principles'. 1, taking action on something before it happens. 2, doing it even though there is no self interest. 3, doing something (as in actual response, over and above talking).
So many times on here we see folk ranting on about a response to something they've done, and how it's terrible as a "matter of principle". Don't talk sh!te. It's terrible 'cos you've got done, but there's no principle in it.
I'm not suggesting you don't feel outraged, I'm questioning why. I'm questioning why folk keep going on about Freedom of Speech, but then want to sack the MP for the sick joke, or want to stop the person with the offensive banner, or want to stop the IRA speaking in person on the BBC.
I'm questioning this, because over the years we've become let down with the total lack of any real action. What have you done about the tyranny (?) you quote above. Have you joined a group, or even better formed one (it gets better publicity), or written to your MP, or visited parliament to see him/her, or written to the papers, or organised a protest march, or been on one, or caused a riot, or done a sit in.
If you're like most folk, you won't have done any of the above. So all I'm saying is don't give me this "it's a matter of principle". If you feel genuine moral outrage, do something about it, and make it worthwhile. But not this, please not this.
BFF,
I shan't get into a point-by-point reply; it can appear to be confrontational, and you seem like a reasonable chap.
A couple of things:
- We're only shooting the breeze, but it's generally unwise to presume whether someone is making an effort to change things and the ways in which he or she may choose to do that.
This is not to mention the over-riding question of how possible it is to get something changed in modern Britain.
- I don't know how one should do things in Britain, but the idea of an officer of the law taking such offence to getting the finger - if that's all that happened - that he cites you for an offence is truly pathetic. We could say, "It's always been against the law to exceed the speed limit", but if someone got a fine and points for doing 71 on the motorway that too would be pathetic. Some laws require judgment, which is precisely the problem with the robotic enforcement of speed limits.
- I thought that it was the general impression - it was certainly mine - that most mobile cameras are operated by "civilians". If I were passing a camera van with its operator burrowed clandestinely within it, I would presume that that operator was a SCP flunky who had nothing better to do with his empty life than to make miserable the fuller lives of passersby who are almost always trying innocently to go about their business. It may well have been that the "villain" did not know that he was gesturing to the police.
If he did know that he was gesturing to the police, he was acting stupidly, although one can hardly blame his sentiments. Surely the police - who have a great deal of responsibility, on whom we rely for many things, including discretion, wisdom, forbearance and courage, and who are paid a decent wage by everyone driving past said mobile speed camera, have fairer, more productive and rational ways of spending their valuable time and our valuable money than by catching out drivers who happen to be going slightly faster than an arbitrary and often inappropriate limit.
I shan't get into a point-by-point reply; it can appear to be confrontational, and you seem like a reasonable chap.
A couple of things:
- We're only shooting the breeze, but it's generally unwise to presume whether someone is making an effort to change things and the ways in which he or she may choose to do that.
This is not to mention the over-riding question of how possible it is to get something changed in modern Britain.
- I don't know how one should do things in Britain, but the idea of an officer of the law taking such offence to getting the finger - if that's all that happened - that he cites you for an offence is truly pathetic. We could say, "It's always been against the law to exceed the speed limit", but if someone got a fine and points for doing 71 on the motorway that too would be pathetic. Some laws require judgment, which is precisely the problem with the robotic enforcement of speed limits.
- I thought that it was the general impression - it was certainly mine - that most mobile cameras are operated by "civilians". If I were passing a camera van with its operator burrowed clandestinely within it, I would presume that that operator was a SCP flunky who had nothing better to do with his empty life than to make miserable the fuller lives of passersby who are almost always trying innocently to go about their business. It may well have been that the "villain" did not know that he was gesturing to the police.
If he did know that he was gesturing to the police, he was acting stupidly, although one can hardly blame his sentiments. Surely the police - who have a great deal of responsibility, on whom we rely for many things, including discretion, wisdom, forbearance and courage, and who are paid a decent wage by everyone driving past said mobile speed camera, have fairer, more productive and rational ways of spending their valuable time and our valuable money than by catching out drivers who happen to be going slightly faster than an arbitrary and often inappropriate limit.
nonegreen said:
The laws banning marajuana making it an illegal drug have been softened recently for the simple reason that too many users exist to ever make enforcement possible. Its still an illegal and very dangerous drug, yet the mindless liberal elite have chosen to downgrade the imposition on the general public.
You've been conned. Nothing has changed with Cannabis except its classification. We are doing the same procedural stuff re enforcement and process that we did before. You still get nicked for personal possession (or can do).
Good old Blunkett had everyone over a treat, most of all those who now think it is almost permissible.
>> Edited by mg6b on Sunday 5th February 19:24
Question, questions.....here's one I did earlier. It seems to have got lost....
Hypothetical question for mg6b.....do I have your attention, sir...?
What do you do in the following circumstances..?
I am standing with a group of journalists on your patch
We are waiting on the pavement
John Precott is due to arrive any minute
The car arrives, and Mr Prescott emerges
A journalist calls .....Any comment, John?
Prescott ignores him, walks into the building and raises two fingers to the crowd (again)
I call your mobile and tell you that John Prescott has offended me, and I have several witnesses who are also offended.
Over.........
Hypothetical question for mg6b.....do I have your attention, sir...?
What do you do in the following circumstances..?
I am standing with a group of journalists on your patch
We are waiting on the pavement
John Precott is due to arrive any minute
The car arrives, and Mr Prescott emerges
A journalist calls .....Any comment, John?
Prescott ignores him, walks into the building and raises two fingers to the crowd (again)
I call your mobile and tell you that John Prescott has offended me, and I have several witnesses who are also offended.
Over.........
It's all very easy, this.
Respect has to be earnt. You just can't gain respect by force. If the goal is respect, then they've failed. Do they really think that this guy will have any more respect for them after they've taken him to court? He might think twice when he next drives past a camera, but how many cameras has he already driven past and ignored? The only positive step they've achieved is for him to supress his actions whilst he drives past. Big deal.
They lost respect the moment they accepted the job in my book. But I suspect these guys don't care about respect or they wouldn't be doing that job in the first place. So if it's not about respect, then it must be something else. The age-old "my dads bigger than your dad". Only in this case, they have the law "on their side" which is the universal trump card.
Big Fat F'er, I think I understand what you've said, but it seems to boil down to the point that you can't possibly support principles unless you can demonstrate that you've actively stood up for principles by joining a group, or forming one. That's just not true; in every day life we support principles - i mean; even letting someone out of a junction in front of you is an act of principle. So if this is the entry requirement I think we can all join!
Also, I don't believe it's the police's job to interfere with how this guy brings up his kids, or even consider this. This is extending the argument in order to support a flawed core decision. A similar stance to using the law to justify this decision. It's not a matter of law - it's common sense, principles and moral judgement.
Respect has to be earnt. You just can't gain respect by force. If the goal is respect, then they've failed. Do they really think that this guy will have any more respect for them after they've taken him to court? He might think twice when he next drives past a camera, but how many cameras has he already driven past and ignored? The only positive step they've achieved is for him to supress his actions whilst he drives past. Big deal.
They lost respect the moment they accepted the job in my book. But I suspect these guys don't care about respect or they wouldn't be doing that job in the first place. So if it's not about respect, then it must be something else. The age-old "my dads bigger than your dad". Only in this case, they have the law "on their side" which is the universal trump card.
Big Fat F'er, I think I understand what you've said, but it seems to boil down to the point that you can't possibly support principles unless you can demonstrate that you've actively stood up for principles by joining a group, or forming one. That's just not true; in every day life we support principles - i mean; even letting someone out of a junction in front of you is an act of principle. So if this is the entry requirement I think we can all join!
Also, I don't believe it's the police's job to interfere with how this guy brings up his kids, or even consider this. This is extending the argument in order to support a flawed core decision. A similar stance to using the law to justify this decision. It's not a matter of law - it's common sense, principles and moral judgement.
flemke said:
BFF,
- I thought that it was the general impression - it was certainly mine - that most mobile cameras are operated by "civilians". If I were passing a camera van with its operator burrowed clandestinely within it, I would presume that that operator was a SCP flunky who had nothing better to do with his empty life than to make miserable the fuller lives of passersby who are almost always trying innocently to go about their business. It may well have been that the "villain" did not know that he was gesturing to the police.
I will give you some advice.
Don't stick your fingers up to anyone or anything that looks like a police authority employee or vehicle. You never know who it is or who is in it. You never know what response you might get. You are taking a gamble by doing so.
I would urge you not to do the same in any street when you are on foot especially at night towards the end of the week. you may get a similar response.
No custody Sgt I know would refuse to accept an arrest under section 5 POA 1986 if the evidence is there however minor or trivial the perpetrator or a witness thought it was at the time.
Section 5 POA is a recordable offence. If you go through the back door, you will have your dabs and DNA taken. You may end up with an £80 FPN when you are discharged. You may even end up with an £80 FPN without going through the back door in which case you will not forgo the loss of your DNA or dabs.
Police forces are under pressure from the Home Office to increase their detection rates. Section 5 POA 1986 is a detection and goes into the stats to show the performance improvement of the force. £80 PND (penalty notice disposal) offences are counted in those figures.
The gamble
1. Do I get processed at all?
2. Do I lose my DNA and dabs to the cause?
3. Do I receive an £80 FPN?
4. Do I join the rapidly increasing 'Club' with a number?
5. Do I leave with a charge and bail sheet for court next week?
The decision is yours
mg6b said:
Police forces are under pressure from the Home Office to increase their detection rates. Section 5 POA 1986 is a detection and goes into the stats to show the performance improvement of the force. £80 PND (penalty notice disposal) offences are counted in those figures.
At last.....
mg6b said:Aha! The old "It's not our fault! It's someone elses!" gag. The old ones are the best
I will give you some advice.
In all seriousness, that probably shouldn't come as news to me, but it did. Ta for the advice. What a world we live in! Don't you ever consider leaving, or do you think these pressures are consistent with good law enforcement?
HELLO.....THIRD ATTEMPT
I said:
Question, questions.....here's one I did earlier. It seems to have got lost....
Hypothetical question for mg6b.....do I have your attention, sir...?
What do you do in the following circumstances..?
I am standing with a group of journalists on your patch
We are waiting on the pavement
John Precott is due to arrive any minute
The car arrives, and Mr Prescott emerges
A journalist calls .....Any comment, John?
Prescott ignores him, walks into the building and raises two fingers to the crowd (again)
I call your mobile and tell you that John Prescott has offended me, and I have several witnesses who are also offended.
Over.........
mybrainhurts said:
Question, questions.....here's one I did earlier. It seems to have got lost....
Hypothetical question for mg6b.....do I have your attention, sir...?
What do you do in the following circumstances..?
I am standing with a group of journalists on your patch
We are waiting on the pavement
John Precott is due to arrive any minute
The car arrives, and Mr Prescott emerges
A journalist calls .....Any comment, John?
Prescott ignores him, walks into the building and raises two fingers to the crowd (again)
I call your mobile and tell you that John Prescott has offended me, and I have several witnesses who are also offended.
Over.........
In that case you would have to be prepared to give a statement explaining that you were harassed alarmed or distressed. You would be expected to introduce me to as many witnesses as you could and statements would be taken from them. Any CCTV or video film would be seized as evidence. You would be expected to appear at court as a witness if Mr Prescott was prosecuted. As I had not witnessed the event, I would not be in a position to follow him and issue him with a FPN.
If I could get through his security at the time or shortly afterwards, I would report him for the offence. If I could not get through his security, I would take steps to get someone to do so and inform him that he would be reported for the offence. I would then have to wait for the statement of the reporting officer to arrive for my case file. I would then sit down for 4 hours preparing a court file. Having prepared the court file, it would go to CPS to decide whether to prosecute him or not. Should they decide to do so, he would be summonsed to appear at a magistrates court. If he took legal advice, I expect he would be told to plead guilty if there were many witnesses and full disclosure had been given.
Whether CPS would decide to run with it or not is another matter. When he punched someone for throwing an egg, they found a reason not to!
That is what I would do.
mg6b said:
Question, questions.....here's one I did earlier. It seems to have got lost....
Hypothetical question for mg6b.....do I have your attention, sir...?
What do you do in the following circumstances..?
I am standing with a group of journalists on your patch
We are waiting on the pavement
John Precott is due to arrive any minute
The car arrives, and Mr Prescott emerges
A journalist calls .....Any comment, John?
Prescott ignores him, walks into the building and raises two fingers to the crowd (again)
I call your mobile and tell you that John Prescott has offended me, and I have several witnesses who are also offended.
Over.........
In that case you would have to be prepared to give a statement explaining that you were harassed alarmed or distressed. You would be expected to introduce me to as many witnesses as you could and statements would be taken from them. Any CCTV or video film would be seized as evidence. You would be expected to appear at court as a witness if Mr Prescott was prosecuted. As I had not witnessed the event, I would not be in a position to follow him and issue him with a FPN.
If I could get through his security at the time or shortly afterwards, I would report him for the offence. If I could not get through his security, I would take steps to get someone to do so and inform him that he would be reported for the offence. I would then have to wait for the statement of the reporting officer to arrive for my case file. I would then sit down for 4 hours preparing a court file. Having prepared the court file, it would go to CPS to decide whether to prosecute him or not. Should they decide to do so, he would be summonsed to appear at a magistrates court. If he took legal advice, I expect he would be told to plead guilty if there were many witnesses and full disclosure had been given.
Whether CPS would decide to run with it or not is another matter. When he punched someone for throwing an egg, they found a reason not to!
That is what I would do.
Walked into that, didn't I...?
May I ask another question?
Would you support your officer who was standing next to me, got miffed with Mr P, and tried to slap an eighty quid on him...?
mg6b said:
I will give you some advice...etc.
Fair enough, and thank you.
Like most of us on PH, and in the general population, I daresay, I was raised to respect every police officer and fireman, both for the risks that they took as individuals and for the positions that they represented.
Sure, there will always be a few bad apples and attitude problems in any group, including amongst the aforementioned, but I've no doubt that the overwhelming majority are decent, admirable folk.
This thread has partly been about what, on the face of it, may have been a rare bad apple. At the same time, it's also been about a system that induces decent, admirable folk to dubious actions (e.g., 'pressure from the Home Office to increase their detection rates'), based on rules that the populace never voted for and that defy both common sense and critical scrutiny.
>> Edited by flemke on Sunday 5th February 20:52
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff