Policeman arrests protestor for 'alleged' (made-up) DUI

[carinaman]

The reason I've said 'Alcohol doesn't smell', so you say 'intoxicating liquor' is that I was told that by a police officer.

Now that police officer hasn't given me any cause for concern and has admitted in front of more than myself that they once wrongfully arrested someone due to a technicality.

I'll go with what that officer told me. I'll also go with them as I've met them several times and I know they are a police officer rather than some unseen and unknown person posting online.


Second point, is I have first hand recent experience of police officers resorting to BS and bluster when pushing false allegations. That police officer seems to be doing BS and bluster.

Some police officers may have told me, 'If you didn't see something say so'. 'I didn't see it'.

So that bespectacled officer is doing 'You saw that (name of other officer)', which seems to go against 'If you didn't see it say so'. Also it seems that three officers are backing off seemingly reluctant to get roped in on something they suspect may not end well.


'Some PHers have an anti-police attitude'? I made the point in the Reigate Bacon Sandwich parking scandal thread last week that you get police officers arguing amongst themselves in online forums. From a cursory glance at that Specials forum linked to by a previous post it seems that the jury is out there too on what happened in this case.

[10 Pence Short]

The first officer had no evidence from which to gain a reasonable suspicion that the protester had been driving. Any use of powers based upon that unreasonable suspicion would therefore be unlawful.

[Mk3Spitfire]

10 Pence Short said:

The first officer had no evidence from which to gain a reasonable suspicion that the protester had been driving. Any use of powers based upon that unreasonable suspicion would therefore be unlawful.

What are you basing this on? He knew what car he had, how do you know he didn't see him drive earlier?
I normally respect your opinions and if you have clarified earlier on I apologise but I couldn't face wading through 3 pages of RovingHawk/carinaman usual bks.

[carinaman]

Mk3Spitfire said:

What are you basing this on? He knew what car he had, how do you know he didn't see him drive earlier? I normally respect your opinions and if you have clarified earlier on I apologise but I couldn't face wading through 3 pages of RovingHawk/carinaman usual bks.

Where are you going with that angle of attack?

carinaman said:

'Some PHers have an anti-police attitude'? I made the point in the Reigate Bacon Sandwich parking scandal thread last week that you get police officers arguing amongst themselves in online forums. From a cursory glance at that Specials forum linked to by a previous post it seems that the jury is out there too on what happened in this case.

Read the link on the Specials forum for yourself:

Halb said:

I do not know whether he exceeds his powers or not. But my impression of him is that he is purposefully making up a 'drink driving' story to persecute the observer.

Interesting comments here.
http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php/topi...

The first name thing is interesting.

So despite Professional Standards being mentioned in the police van parking on the pavement last week, you're still behaving like someone who thinks Professional Standards don't apply to them.

If you are BiB, and you think you are above Professional Standards then what other laws and regulations do you think don't also apply to you?

[Mk3Spitfire]

In what world do you live?? Why are you withering on about PSD and specials? I specifically quoted 10ps, as although I don't agree with what he says sometimes, it is at least relevant and coherent. I respectfully decline to engage in any further debate with yourself as you appear unable to hold a train of thought long enough to prove any relevant point.

[rohrl]

The guy in the video is a "Freeman on the Land" type. I just copied this from a thread on reddit about this video :

From the description on the YouTube video uploaded by Steve Spy:

Lawful Observer is assaulted by 9986 and then his colleage lies in order to carry out unlawful arrest of Lawful observer whilst filming police assaults at protest against Fracking on Barton Moss Road, Irlam, Salford on 14/1/14. After the camera was turned off, 08076 David Kehoe breaks camera strap in order to seize camera from lawful observer. Because of advanced storage technology, the video data was stored by the device to be recovered when the camera was eventually returned on 31st January 2014. Uniformed hired thug for IGAS David Kehoe blatantly lies about what is said, even though there is a camera pointed at him recording his lies.

Transcript of court case 28/1/14:

Usher - "can you stand at the end"
Freeman - "I claim common law jurisdiction, I do not consent and I wave the
benefits"
Magistrate - "Can you repeat that"
Freeman - "I claim common law jurisdiction, I do not consent and I wave the
benefits"
Magistrate (to other two magistrates) - "I don't think we have had that before"
Clerk - "Are you Steven Spy?"
Freeman - "I am Steven of the family Spy"
Clerk - " Are you Steven Spy?"
Freeman - "I am Steven of the family Spy"
Clerk - "Where do you live?"
Freeman - "I live on the land"
Clerk - "Can you confirm your date of birth"
Freeman - "I believe that would be hearsay evidence, your honour"
Clerk - "If you honour is satisfied we have identified the defendant, we can
continue".
Prosecution - "The prosecution is not satisfied that there is sufficient
evidence to substantiate the charge, therefore we withdraw the case"
Clerk - " Do you understand that the prosecution is withdrawing its case"
Freeman - "No I do not understand, but I do comprehend"
Magistrate - "Whether you understand or comprehend, the prosecution is
withdrawing its case, so the case is dismissed and you are free to go"
Freeman - "Thank you, your honour".

[andy_s]

carinaman said:

The reason I've said 'Alcohol doesn't smell', so you say 'intoxicating liquor' is that I was told that by a police officer.

Now that police officer hasn't given me any cause for concern and has admitted in front of more than myself that they once wrongfully arrested someone due to a technicality.

I'll go with what that officer told me. I'll also go with them as I've met them several times and I know they are a police officer rather than some unseen and unknown person posting online.

I'm afraid you're conflating things. The phrase 'breath smelt of intoxicating liquor' is used as one point amongst a few to give an expert opinion of someone's sobriety in court "I saw he was unsteady on his feet, his breath smelt of intoxicating liquor, his speech was slurred, he was drunk" is the bog standard reply to 'how did you know he was drunk?' when drunkenness is a factor in the charge (D&D).

In this case the policeman is not in court; saying 'because you stink of drink' when asked why you were required to blow into a bag may suffice given the common meaning, no particular phraseology is required as far as I know.

At least that's what it was like when I was in the old bill.

carinaman said:

Second point, is I have first hand recent experience of police officers resorting to BS and bluster when pushing false allegations. That police officer seems to be doing BS and bluster.

Some police officers may have told me, 'If you didn't see something say so'. 'I didn't see it'.

So that bespectacled officer is doing 'You saw that (name of other officer)', which seems to go against 'If you didn't see it say so'. Also it seems that three officers are backing off seemingly reluctant to get roped in on something they suspect may not end well.

'Some PHers have an anti-police attitude'? I made the point in the Reigate Bacon Sandwich parking scandal thread last week that you get police officers arguing amongst themselves in online forums. From a cursory glance at that Specials forum linked to by a previous post it seems that the jury is out there too on what happened in this case.

In this particular case it looks like there is a lot more going wrong than a turn of phrase, hence my 'deckchairs on the Titanic' analogy.

[carinaman]

Mk3Spitfire said:

In what world do you live?? Why are you withering on about PSD and specials? I specifically quoted 10ps, as although I don't agree with what he says sometimes, it is at least relevant and coherent. I respectfully decline to engage in any further debate with yourself as you appear unable to hold a train of thought long enough to prove any relevant point.

Mk3Spitfire said:

What are you basing this on? He knew what car he had, how do you know he didn't see him drive earlier?
I normally respect your opinions and if you have clarified earlier on I apologise but I couldn't face wading through 3 pages of RovingHawk/carinaman usual bks.

I wouldn't expect you to get the PSD point.

Why are you intent on laying into posters here? It's not them that are the officers making themselves look dodgy in that video, or the person that filmed it or uploaded it.

It's the same as the Reigate parking infraction last week. Some posters seem intent on making it about people that post online rather than what's being discussed. It wasn't PHers that parked that police Transit on the pavement in Reigate last week.

[anonymous-user]

Mk3Spitfire said:

10 Pence Short said:

The first officer had no evidence from which to gain a reasonable suspicion that the protester had been driving. Any use of powers based upon that unreasonable suspicion would therefore be unlawful.

What are you basing this on? He knew what car he had, how do you know he didn't see him drive earlier?

I admit that 10ps's thought crossed my mind too. Assume the officer saw the demonstrator arrive by car. Then he subsequently sees him and suspects he has been drinking. There's a time gap between seeing him driving and seeing him subsequently, in which the alcohol could have been drunk. What's the basis for the officer's suspicion that the demonstrator had been drinking *prior to* his arrival by car?

Or is that the wrong question to ask?

Not particularly impressed by the officer's bare faced lie at 1.32 in the presence of his two colleagues, but that's by the by.

[Rude-boy]

Bill said:

XCP said:

What was the upshot of all this?
Did he get arrested and/or charged or did he provide a specimen of breath?

No idea, but through that site I've learnt to generate electricity for FREE and the Truth behind 9/11.

Read 3 lines of that link and clicked off.

Almost as bad as the RadFem one about all sex is rape.

PC - dhead.
Crusty - dhead.

Both need re education. Sadly only the PC will get it and numbnuts will get their chance to play the wasting Police time and causing grief with the intent to leading others to their own downfall game again.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Greg66 said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

10 Pence Short said:

The first officer had no evidence from which to gain a reasonable suspicion that the protester had been driving. Any use of powers based upon that unreasonable suspicion would therefore be unlawful.

What are you basing this on? He knew what car he had, how do you know he didn't see him drive earlier?

I admit that 10ps's thought crossed my mind too. Assume the officer saw the demonstrator arrive by car. Then he subsequently sees him and suspects he has been drinking. There's a time gap between seeing him driving and seeing him subsequently, in which the alcohol could have been drunk. What's the basis for the officer's suspicion that the demonstrator had been drinking *prior to* his arrival by car?

Or is that the wrong question to ask?

Not particularly impressed by the officer's bare faced lie at 1.32 in the presence of his two colleagues, but that's by the by.

Thank god there is someone posting at the moment with some common sense.
I agree with you. There may be issues regarding timing etc. I just dont think it would be appropriate to outright say there were no grounds unless we have all the details.
My opinion of the officer? He's had a long day and has lost the ability to act in the professional way he should. Im not impressed by his actions or attitude at all. I will say, however that his is yet again an example of not being able to make a truly informed opinion without all the facts.
As for the lie,I think that the officer was genuinely mistaken in that he heard "Ive had tea" as being "Ive had two". Maybe Im wrong but I cant imagine he would come up with a lie of that magnitude knowing full well he is on film.

[anonymous-user]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Thank god there is someone posting at the moment with some common sense.
I agree with you. There may be issues regarding timing etc. I just dont think it would be appropriate to outright say there were no grounds unless we have all the details.
My opinion of the officer? He's had a long day and has lost the ability to act in the professional way he should. Im not impressed by his actions or attitude at all. I will say, however that his is yet again an example of not being able to make a truly informed opinion without all the facts.
As for the lie,I think that the officer was genuinely mistaken in that he heard "Ive had tea" as being "Ive had two". Maybe Im wrong but I cant imagine he would come up with a lie of that magnitude knowing full well he is on film.

Cheers. Wondered about the tea/two thing as well. As you say, it's an odd thing to conjure up if he knew he was being filmed.

If the transcript (upthread) is of the demonstrator's day out in court, and is accurate, then I can see how patience might have been in short supply on the day.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Greg66 said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

Thank god there is someone posting at the moment with some common sense.
I agree with you. There may be issues regarding timing etc. I just dont think it would be appropriate to outright say there were no grounds unless we have all the details.
My opinion of the officer? He's had a long day and has lost the ability to act in the professional way he should. Im not impressed by his actions or attitude at all. I will say, however that his is yet again an example of not being able to make a truly informed opinion without all the facts.
As for the lie,I think that the officer was genuinely mistaken in that he heard "Ive had tea" as being "Ive had two". Maybe Im wrong but I cant imagine he would come up with a lie of that magnitude knowing full well he is on film.

Cheers. Wondered about the tea/two thing as well. As you say, it's an odd thing to conjure up if he knew he was being filmed.

If the transcript (upthread) is of the demonstrator's day out in court, and is accurate, then I can see how patience might have been in short supply on the day.

Yes, I think patience of a saint would have been in order. That being said, I am expected to act professionally regardless of who I am dealing with, and this guy should have done also. It is easy for us to sit here and judge, but he really hasn't helped himself.

[Matt_N]

Derek Smith said:

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.

What would the next course of action if someone who was breathalysed and blew over the limit be then?

There would be no evidence to suggest that they were intending to drive under the influence?

What could they be charged with?

Being in a pub whilst under the influence of alcohol?!

[carinaman]

I stopped it at 1.14 in.

After the chap with the camera says he's been assaulted, the police officer says 'Are you drunk, have you been drinking?'

So he could have misheard, but his opening gambit was 'Are you drunk?'.

That's a closed question. I'm not sure where the officer was intending to go with that angle of attack.

SpitfireMk3, a few weeks ago you were giving advice to that poster that expressed an interest in joining the police and giving other officers that expressed a different view from yours a hard time. Police officers are trained to realise when they're getting short tempered and testy, and police officers are trained when to recognise that in their colleagues and to intervene, to take over with the MoP possibly for the benefit of the MoP, the police officer that appears that they may be about to lose it or make errors of judgement and possibly damage the reputation of the police.

That officer isn't a newbie is he? The protest wasn't a dawn raid was it? The protest and the type of people and their possible behaviour was predictable. It may have been a difficult situation but it's hardly unusual or unforeseen given the circumstances.

[Mk3Spitfire]

carinaman said:

I stopped it at 1.14 in.

After the chap with the camera says he's been assaulted, the police officer says 'Are you drunk, have you been drinking?'

So he could have misheard, but his opening gambit was 'Are you drunk?'.

That's a closed question. I'm not sure where the officer was intending to go with that angle of attack.

SpitfireMk3, a few weeks ago you were giving advice to that poster that expressed an interest in joining the police and giving other officers that expressed a different view from yours a hard time. Police officers are trained to realise when they're getting short tempered and testy, and police officers are trained when to recognise that in their colleagues and to intervene, to take over with the MoP possibly for the benefit of the MoP, the police officer that appears that they may be about to lose it or make errors of judgement and possibly damage the reputation of the police.

That officer isn't a newbie is he? The protest wasn't a dawn raid was it? The protest and the type of people and their possible behaviour was predictable. It may have been a difficult situation but it's hardly unusual or unforeseen given the circumstances.

Mancarina, Can I just ask, where and how long ago did you do your standard police training? You seem to "know" a lot about police training/responsibilities/powers/limitations etc etc and so it might be prudent to hear where you did your training and where you served. Maybe this will explain your different view point. What rank did you achieve?

My advice to the guy planning to join was nothing but encouragement. My "giving others a hard time" was clearly not felt by those concerned. If I recall correctly you had to edit and miss-quote substantially on that occasion, which was hideously unsuccessfully.

You try so hard to have a go, and "point score" as you put it before, and I genuinely feel sorry for you. But if you have nothing relevant, or indeed interesting to say, why not just try saying nothing? OK, you dislike the police, fine. Ok, the police are sometimes wrong, fine. But your constant juvenile attempts to slate the police are mundane and tedious. Grow up. Get a life or a hobby or something. Christ I dont know, maybe even get a girlfriend. Life is too short.

[carinaman]

You seemed to be putting a positive spin on it, being charitable.

I watched the start of the video recording again. I think wondering whether the drink driving allegation was retaliatory as it was first heard of in response to 'You're assaulting me' is entirely valid.

It's no different from some of the handbag twirling that goes on here is it?

Training that teaches people in difficult situations to realise when they're getting wound up, short tempered and when to step in and take over from colleagues if you see those warning signs in them isn't exclusive to police training is it? It's applicable to other roles and professions.

Should I find something else to do?

I've previously mentioned that police officers bicker amongst themselves in their own police Internet forums so trying to make it about the opinion of others here seems to make it personal. When police quarrel amongst themselves in their jobs and in their own Internet forums trying to stamp it out everywhere else wouldn't seem an entirely thought through endeavour.


I don't know how it compares to attempts to control the news agenda:

Louis Emanuel on The Bristol Press website 3 September 2013 said:

AVON and Somerset Police chief constable Nick Gargan has moved to name officers who have faced criminal charges.

The move follows calls from the Bristol Post and police and crime commissioner Sue Mountstevens to identify officers involved in serious misconduct.

Mr Gargan, who was appointed by the commissioner earlier this year, also promised to identify all officers who are charged with an offence in the future.

In a letter to the Post, he said: "It will in future be our policy to name members of Avon and Somerset Constabulary who are charged with offences."

Read more: http://legacy.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol-s-chief-...

Didn't Kent's PCC, the one that hired the Adele lookalike Teenage PCC say that the rules meant she didn't have to make it public that Kent's Chief Constable was getting done for something mildy serious, was it a conflict of interest?


I don't know how seeking to control the news and unfavourable press coverage compares with wanting to keep false allegations against members of the public, colleagues or politicians under wraps.

Aren't the police like celebrities? They want the news to be about them if it's good and says what they want it to say? Perhaps ACPO should be on Hacked Off alongside Max Mosley, Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan?

Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 5th February 18:34

[Mk3Spitfire]

carinaman said:

You seemed to be putting a positive spin on it, being charitable.



Should I find something else to do?

In response to the first bit, anyone who is interested enough to look for the thread will see that that clearly is not the case, and couldn't be further from the truth.

The second part - Yes.

Sorry for the edit, but as usual, there was far too much waffle to be worth quoting.

[carinaman]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Sorry for the edit, but as usual, there was far too much waffle to be worth quoting.

No need to apologise.

I like good police officers. I view police officers that make stuff up like anybody else that makes stuff up.

It's interesting comparing this video with the one where the chap in High Wycombe videoed that drunk PCSO getting taken away by his colleagues.

[Mk3Spitfire]

carinaman said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

Sorry for the edit, but as usual, there was far too much waffle to be worth quoting.

No need to apologise.

I like good police officers. I view police officers that make stuff up like anybody else that makes stuff up.

It's interesting comparing this video with the one where the chap in High Wycombe videoed that drunk PCSO getting taken away by his colleagues.

I disagree. From what I have seen, you do not like any police officers good or bad and will take any opportunity to slate them. That's fine. I wouldn't expect everyone to like the police due to the nature of the job we do. What I cant understand is your apparent need to trawl forums on an hourly basis, in the hope of hitting upon some negative press upon which you can add your own petty insults and poorly informed slant.
I dislike Police officers that lie. I despise officers who throw their weight around unnecessarily and who have an attitude problem or power trip issues. But I also despise those who have an unwarranted fetish with police bashing, and who are unable to entertain another's views or opinions resulting from their deep-set desire to bash the Police.
You and RovingHawk are, IMHO, an example of this type of person.
Whatever your profession is, I will go out on a limb and assume that there are some who do the job poorly and who are unprofessional and give that specific occupation a bad name? Do I actively look for forums and threads depicting such behavior and constantly throw insults or negative miss-leading information around said threads? No. I do not. But there we go, different mentalities and beliefs I suppose.