Policeman arrests protestor for 'alleged' (made-up) DUI
Discussion
Robert Peel will be spinning in his grave.
My 4 year old granddaughter has more people skills.
Never mind ...lessons will be learned.
Who gives out the bloody lessons though?
Cos one thing is certain, they CAN'T teach!!
Ahh, but it will be pointed out the stress of the job, it must be an isolated case?
Just a mo...
Just less than a month ago...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
Let's all give up. I have.
My 4 year old granddaughter has more people skills.
Never mind ...lessons will be learned.
Who gives out the bloody lessons though?
Cos one thing is certain, they CAN'T teach!!
Ahh, but it will be pointed out the stress of the job, it must be an isolated case?
Just a mo...
Just less than a month ago...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
Let's all give up. I have.
He seemed very forceful that he was a pedestrian but avoided the question of how he actually got to the protest.
The policeman could well have seen him drive there earlier in the day.
Looking at some of the other videos on that account they seem to be using any excuse to have a good at authority/police.
The policeman could well have seen him drive there earlier in the day.
Looking at some of the other videos on that account they seem to be using any excuse to have a good at authority/police.
voyds9 said:
He seemed very forceful that he was a pedestrian but avoided the question of how he actually got to the protest.
The policeman could well have seen him drive there earlier in the day.
Looking at some of the other videos on that account they seem to be using any excuse to have a good at authority/police.
The protestors are clearly idiots.The policeman could well have seen him drive there earlier in the day.
Looking at some of the other videos on that account they seem to be using any excuse to have a good at authority/police.
However, I am not sure that gives the police the right to also act like idiots. Is this any different to wondering into a pub and breathalysing everyone who arrived driving a car; then arresting those who fail irrespective of whether they intended to drive again? Utter madness.
It never ceases to amaze me how dumb our police officers seem.
Did seem vindictive just because he was filming them the first one thought right I'll give this guy a bad day.
But if he did drive there and was seen to drive there then fine in my book however I think they were just trying f
k his day up.
How would they prove this in court even if he had been drinking surely it's his work against the first guy. I would hope they would need more than that.
But if he did drive there and was seen to drive there then fine in my book however I think they were just trying f
k his day up.How would they prove this in court even if he had been drinking surely it's his work against the first guy. I would hope they would need more than that.
richie99 said:
That's Vic Reeves. It's just a windup.
You could have a point. It could be PC Dr Shakomoto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsS1BkPg5I
There seems to be more to this video, when did he tell him his name? He also never said he had a drink, how did they know which was his car.
It's perfectly legal to drive your car somewhere, park up, drink and then walk home. That copper has zero evidence that he had drank before he got there and has no grounds to breathalyse him.
It's perfectly legal to drive your car somewhere, park up, drink and then walk home. That copper has zero evidence that he had drank before he got there and has no grounds to breathalyse him.
carinaman said:
Police Training 101.
'Alcohol is odourless, it doesn't smell'.
Chemistry 101'Alcohol is odourless, it doesn't smell'.
'Ethanol is a colourless, mobile liquid with a characteristic odour.'
The question as to whether you can smell alcohol (or its metabolites) on somebodies breath is another subject - but ethanol certainly cannot be described as "odourless" (as anyone who has worked with absolute ethanol will attest).
carinaman said:
Police Training 101.
'Alcohol is odourless, it doesn't smell'.
Therefore you say:
'I can smell intoxicating liquor on your breath'.
What an utter numpty of a police officer.
Is that Greater Manchester Police again?
It is 101, unsteady on feet, smell of liquor, eyes glazed, slurred speech are all prima facie valid indications that someone may be drunk. So in that context, not a numpty.'Alcohol is odourless, it doesn't smell'.
Therefore you say:
'I can smell intoxicating liquor on your breath'.
What an utter numpty of a police officer.
Is that Greater Manchester Police again?
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 4th February 21:18
Going by the video:
There is nothing to stop the police officer demanding a specimen of breath from the protester. The requirement would appear to be legal. If the demonstrator fails or refuses to provide a specimen of breath then there is a power of arrest.
If you don't like the law then don't blame the bobby, he's merely doing his job.
As for his attitude, whilst I am sure that everyone on PH could police a demonstration without becoming stressed and this showing in their voice and attitude, there are some who are vulnerable to endorphins. This group is generally known as 'everyone'.
Get down there and do what the police officer was doing and then try and thread some cotton through the eye of a needle, because that's what the officer is trying to do, except the cotton is too wide for the hole. The demonstrator is trying to wind up a stressed man. We can all suggest that a professional should not get upset but then I think it would be nicer if it didn't rain of a weekend. But it happens and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
In reply to an earlier poster with regards people having driven to a pub: of course the police could demand specimens of breath from all those in a pub who have their cars parked outside. To suggest that most people leave their cars in the car park to be pick them up in the morning: well, you must be drunk.
I can smell alcohol. It does have a distinct smell. It is intoxicating liquor that give suspicion but alcohol is an accepted shorthand when dealing with the public. After all, this bloke has been drinking so therefore it doesn't do to get too technical with him.
There is nothing to stop the police officer demanding a specimen of breath from the protester. The requirement would appear to be legal. If the demonstrator fails or refuses to provide a specimen of breath then there is a power of arrest.
If you don't like the law then don't blame the bobby, he's merely doing his job.
As for his attitude, whilst I am sure that everyone on PH could police a demonstration without becoming stressed and this showing in their voice and attitude, there are some who are vulnerable to endorphins. This group is generally known as 'everyone'.
Get down there and do what the police officer was doing and then try and thread some cotton through the eye of a needle, because that's what the officer is trying to do, except the cotton is too wide for the hole. The demonstrator is trying to wind up a stressed man. We can all suggest that a professional should not get upset but then I think it would be nicer if it didn't rain of a weekend. But it happens and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
In reply to an earlier poster with regards people having driven to a pub: of course the police could demand specimens of breath from all those in a pub who have their cars parked outside. To suggest that most people leave their cars in the car park to be pick them up in the morning: well, you must be drunk.
I can smell alcohol. It does have a distinct smell. It is intoxicating liquor that give suspicion but alcohol is an accepted shorthand when dealing with the public. After all, this bloke has been drinking so therefore it doesn't do to get too technical with him.
Derek Smith said:
Going by the video:
There is nothing to stop the police officer demanding a specimen of breath from the protester. The requirement would appear to be legal.
In this case the Police officer can only lawfully request a specimen if he has reasonable suspicion the person had alcohol in his system whilst driving and still does (see s6(3) RTA). What is there in the video that gives that reasonable suspicion? Nothing that we can see. It is the officer who suggests the protester has been drinking, but he doesn't mention any tell-tales other than "smelling it on his breath" and relies entirely on telling others that the protester 'told him' that he'd been drinking. Which according to the video he did not. He also had no evidence at all that the protester had been driving.There is nothing to stop the police officer demanding a specimen of breath from the protester. The requirement would appear to be legal.
On that basis, I don't believe the original officer had any legal basis for himself to require the specimen. Whether or not the other officers who dealt would be protected, by their reasonable suspicion being reliant on what they were told by the original officer, I'm not so sure. I doubt it, because if that were the case, it would be an easy workaround for two officers at any time they please to circumnavigate the reasonable suspicion requirement ("Officer XYZ told my ABC told me, guv...").
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Wednesday 5th February 08:29
Derek Smith said:
After all, this bloke has been drinking so therefore it doesn't do to get too technical with him.
Actually - we don't know that from the video. The police officer clearly misheard the guy and interpreted "I had tea" as "I had two" then claimed the guy admitted to drinking (which he didn't).Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff