Visit to Police Station. Advice please...
Discussion
La Liga said:
zarjaz1991 said:
Agreed.
I'm afraid, here on PH, because my age is sort of public from my username (I'm 22, at least for one more day), I find myself subject to rather a lot of what you could call "age discrimination"....doesn't bother me, it actually amuses me. But it's rather sad that so many of the community treat the young with such disdain...
My not-so-serious remark actually implied I expected more from a seemingly intelligent 22 / 23 year old, which is why I aligned your ill-thought out generalisations with the thinking of a 12 / 13 year old. My age still begins with a "two", so we're hardly generations apart. I'm afraid, here on PH, because my age is sort of public from my username (I'm 22, at least for one more day), I find myself subject to rather a lot of what you could call "age discrimination"....doesn't bother me, it actually amuses me. But it's rather sad that so many of the community treat the young with such disdain...
When you write things like:
zarjaz1991 said:
Because the police, for the most part, are corrupt and are no strangers to abusing their powers. With apologies to the minority who aren't.
Then you can expect people who know what they are talking about / have experience to put you straight. Rather than frame it as you being "ganged up on" - perhaps use the responses as a catalyst to examine your own opinions. Am I to believe that this was one, lone, solitary rogue division in an otherwise squeaky clean police service? Or am I being unreasonable to suggest that the police do not take very kindly to having their authority challenged by a member of the public, *particularly* not by a young 20 year old (as I was at the time) with a brand new car, who dared to be intelligent enough to research what he was doing, take them on and win...
The corrupt police upheld your complaint about 'one of their own'?
I can't say it doesn't occur, as I don't work in every part of the country and know everyone, but I have never known someone get targeted because they have complained. How many complaints do you think the police receive? How much time would have to be spent harassing people if it's apparently common place? No other work would get done.
What would the conversations be like from one to others? "Hey, I know you've got 10 crimes to investigate, and 20 allocated incidents that need attending, and lots of other things, but would you mind conspiring against this specific innocent driver and do lots of unjustified checks on a fully audited and recorded system which will show a disproportionate amount of unjustified stops?"
I can't say it doesn't occur, as I don't work in every part of the country and know everyone, but I have never known someone get targeted because they have complained. How many complaints do you think the police receive? How much time would have to be spent harassing people if it's apparently common place? No other work would get done.
What would the conversations be like from one to others? "Hey, I know you've got 10 crimes to investigate, and 20 allocated incidents that need attending, and lots of other things, but would you mind conspiring against this specific innocent driver and do lots of unjustified checks on a fully audited and recorded system which will show a disproportionate amount of unjustified stops?"
La Liga said:
The corrupt police upheld your complaint about 'one of their own'?
I can't say it doesn't occur, as I don't work in every part of the country and know everyone, but I have never known someone get targeted because they have complained. How many complaints do you think the police receive? How much time would have to be spent harassing people if it's apparently common place? No other work would get done.
What would the conversations be like from one to others? "Hey, I know you've got 10 crimes to investigate, and 20 allocated incidents that need attending, and lots of other things, but would you mind conspiring against this specific innocent driver and do lots of unjustified checks on a fully audited and recorded system which will show a disproportionate amount of unjustified stops?"
I think it would be more like there being a list of vehicles that should be "watched"...if you see them, and there's nothing else going on, have a bit of fun with them. But, I'm guessing here.I can't say it doesn't occur, as I don't work in every part of the country and know everyone, but I have never known someone get targeted because they have complained. How many complaints do you think the police receive? How much time would have to be spent harassing people if it's apparently common place? No other work would get done.
What would the conversations be like from one to others? "Hey, I know you've got 10 crimes to investigate, and 20 allocated incidents that need attending, and lots of other things, but would you mind conspiring against this specific innocent driver and do lots of unjustified checks on a fully audited and recorded system which will show a disproportionate amount of unjustified stops?"
I'm not saying there aren't corrupt police officers. There are, have been and always will be. Perhaps you encountered someone unsuitable to be in the job. Their time often comes in my experience. I'm saying it isn't widespread as the systems in place to filter and catch people prevent this.
zarjaz1991 said:
Everyone should earn respect. But also, the police should not prejudge groups of people, which is what they do with young drivers.
I kept getting pulled by the police because I looked younger than my age, driving about in a (then) brand new Mondeo.
The police then get peeved when they realise you'r8we actually fully legal.
Not one attempt to "do" me has ever stuck, because it was mostly lies and mistruths.
I'm still in my 20's and still get ID'd regularly and have been driving around in Nobles and VX220s for the last 7 years. Not a single bothering or anyone trying to stitch me up.I kept getting pulled by the police because I looked younger than my age, driving about in a (then) brand new Mondeo.
The police then get peeved when they realise you'r8we actually fully legal.
Not one attempt to "do" me has ever stuck, because it was mostly lies and mistruths.
ZarZar you will never win with this lot. In their world there is no police corruption and abuse of power.
They are never objective and gang up on anyone who doesnt give a glowing tribute of the police. With their attittudes and a more knowledgeable public, I cant see such types lasting long in the job cause they will eventually do wrong to the type who is willing to take it all the way.
They even gang up on ex coppers on here who cross the thin blue line.
They are never objective and gang up on anyone who doesnt give a glowing tribute of the police. With their attittudes and a more knowledgeable public, I cant see such types lasting long in the job cause they will eventually do wrong to the type who is willing to take it all the way.
They even gang up on ex coppers on here who cross the thin blue line.
KFC said:
Feel free to post a link or a screenshot.
That wouldn't be helpful at the moment.Eclassy said:
They even gang up on ex coppers on here who cross the thin blue line.
But they dealt with it well didn't they? Their reputation is intact and possibly bolstered by their responses.Got to say, I've read some of the anti-police sentiment on here with wry amusement (although I do have a lot of sympathy for the OP)
The police don't make the rules, they enforce them as laid down by parliament. In the case of S.59 parliament made a bad rule, which I'm sure if you look around a lot of people were delighted about because it allowed them to act against nuisance motorists - who wouldn't like to be able to stop the local boy racers hairing round at 3am with straight through exhausts?
The trouble is, in the interests of efficiency, it was decided that there would be no way to appeal or even insist on a hearing of any sort for such "offences".
That's probably incompatible with the ECHR Article 6 right to a fair trial, which is an absolute right and not subject to public interest considerations. If challenged, it's unlikely that calling it a "warning" rather than a penalty would stand up given that it is designed to address alleged criminal behaviour and can lead to the confiscation of personal property without any hearing.
But, until it's challenged, it's still lawful, and the sort of chavs who typically get hit by these orders are unlikely to launch a judicial review or appeal to Europe.
As soon as laws start taking that form we're in big trouble as a society because it will be abused - if not by the frontline police directly then by the system that requires Mr Jones of the Rotary Club to be kept happy.
As the PC in this case appears to have said, he was "advised" to deal with it in that way. Ignoring such "advice" is likely to be bad for his prospects, so you really can't blame him for doing so.
The police don't make the rules, they enforce them as laid down by parliament. In the case of S.59 parliament made a bad rule, which I'm sure if you look around a lot of people were delighted about because it allowed them to act against nuisance motorists - who wouldn't like to be able to stop the local boy racers hairing round at 3am with straight through exhausts?
The trouble is, in the interests of efficiency, it was decided that there would be no way to appeal or even insist on a hearing of any sort for such "offences".
That's probably incompatible with the ECHR Article 6 right to a fair trial, which is an absolute right and not subject to public interest considerations. If challenged, it's unlikely that calling it a "warning" rather than a penalty would stand up given that it is designed to address alleged criminal behaviour and can lead to the confiscation of personal property without any hearing.
But, until it's challenged, it's still lawful, and the sort of chavs who typically get hit by these orders are unlikely to launch a judicial review or appeal to Europe.
As soon as laws start taking that form we're in big trouble as a society because it will be abused - if not by the frontline police directly then by the system that requires Mr Jones of the Rotary Club to be kept happy.
As the PC in this case appears to have said, he was "advised" to deal with it in that way. Ignoring such "advice" is likely to be bad for his prospects, so you really can't blame him for doing so.
KFC said:
Feel free to post a link or a screenshot.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/police-social-media-22125/www.google.co.uk/#q=police+professional+standards+...
http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/workforce/2013...
Variomatic said:
But, until it's challenged, it's still lawful, and the sort of chavs who typically get hit by these orders are unlikely to launch a judicial review or appeal to Europe.
As soon as laws start taking that form we're in big trouble as a society because it will be abused - if not by the frontline police directly then by the system that requires Mr Jones of the Rotary Club to be kept happy.
As the PC in this case appears to have said, he was "advised" to deal with it in that way. Ignoring such "advice" is likely to be bad for his prospects, so you really can't blame him for doing so.
Good post!As soon as laws start taking that form we're in big trouble as a society because it will be abused - if not by the frontline police directly then by the system that requires Mr Jones of the Rotary Club to be kept happy.
As the PC in this case appears to have said, he was "advised" to deal with it in that way. Ignoring such "advice" is likely to be bad for his prospects, so you really can't blame him for doing so.
I've highlighted the C word as I want to make the point that it needs to be about the actions of the individual. If it's about their socio-economic classification, their attire or their choice of car then it risks being about prejudice or something else.
Assuming that people are 'Chavs' that deserve to be on the receiving end of such legislation is little different from assuming that all officers of the law are bad apples.
The OP got an S.59 for their driving, or for being a 'chav'?
Laws can be misused. Look at the Italian student taking photos of our 'iconic' buildings. Look at the Council employees misusing RIPA to spy on families to check that they live where they say they do with respect to school catchment areas.
At least the HoL had to good sense to kick out Grayling's Judicial Review reforms.
I don't know the OP, so I don't know his chav status.
But I do know several distinctly un-chavvy people with exhausts that could easily fall foul of a S59. None of them have yet, but if they did it's very likely indeed that at least two of them would happily take it as far as they could to have the whole system squashed. Even if it cost them considerable amounts of money.
Barry in his Corsa is unlikely to do that (or even be in a position to if he wanted to) so, seeing as it's usually Barry that these things are handed to, they go unchallenged.
But I do know several distinctly un-chavvy people with exhausts that could easily fall foul of a S59. None of them have yet, but if they did it's very likely indeed that at least two of them would happily take it as far as they could to have the whole system squashed. Even if it cost them considerable amounts of money.
Barry in his Corsa is unlikely to do that (or even be in a position to if he wanted to) so, seeing as it's usually Barry that these things are handed to, they go unchallenged.
dacouch said:
1. The CCTV footage contradicted the statements made by the officers?2. The CPS didn't prosecute as it was likely to be unsuccessful.
With Theresa May and the Tories supposedly intent on sorting out dodgy police shouldn't there be a league table or list of alleged 'offences' that are dropped at that stage as the evidence obviously doesn't back up the statements of the officers?
Shouldn't there be some record of such false attempted prosecutions on the service record of the police officers making them?
The BMW driving Train Driver was cleared but the police officers walkaway with an unblemished record?
If police officer mounted cameras reduce false allegations of mistreatment against the police, then surely incidences involving police officers making false allegations shouldn't be allowed to go without being noted somewhere official? If their actions go unchallenged are they likely to repeat them?
Edited by carinaman on Monday 29th December 09:31
If they'd been smart they would have charged him with using his horn on the road in a stationary vehicle contrary to s.99 of thr C&U regs 
Or possibly careless driving if he found himself having to repeatedly "brake sharply" as he claimed? Obviously too close for the speed and continued to be even after the first / second sudden braking!
Or possibly careless driving if he found himself having to repeatedly "brake sharply" as he claimed? Obviously too close for the speed and continued to be even after the first / second sudden braking!
Edited by Variomatic on Monday 29th December 10:37
"The latest findings came from a year-long study of cameras worn by officers in Rialto, California.
It found use-of-force by officers fell by 59 per cent and reports against officers dropped by 87 per cent against the previous year's figures."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11315...
It found use-of-force by officers fell by 59 per cent and reports against officers dropped by 87 per cent against the previous year's figures."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11315...
One thing that seems clear is that many police officers do not like to be wrong - or more accurately, shown to be wrong by someone. It sounds like it was lucky that guy's solicitor was able to get hold of CCTV showing that he wasn't 'threatening and abusive' and that the police account of events was, shall we say, 'inaccurate'. What might have been the outcome without the CCTV evidence?
The police response was to 'screw him over' on this occasion, to 'teach him a lesson' by the sounds of it.
The police response was to 'screw him over' on this occasion, to 'teach him a lesson' by the sounds of it.
Funk said:
One thing that seems clear is that many police officers do not like to be wrong - or more accurately, shown to be wrong by someone. It sounds like it was lucky that guy's solicitor was able to get hold of CCTV showing that he wasn't 'threatening and abusive' and that the police account of events was, shall we say, 'inaccurate'. What might have been the outcome without the CCTV evidence?
The police response was to 'screw him over' on this occasion, to 'teach him a lesson' by the sounds of it.
That case is not dissimilar to what happened to me, in terms of procedure. The police response was to 'screw him over' on this occasion, to 'teach him a lesson' by the sounds of it.
I was hauled to court for doing a U turn in a pelican crossing. Due care and attention charge. Only one problem....my U turn was actually several hundred yards further down the road and in a perfectly safe position. I was being "punished" by a group of officers for successfully having one of their colleagues reprimanded following a complaint.
My case went to court but was thrown out at that stage, at which point the officer who had been due to give evidence against me, threatened me in the corridor outside the court.
This officer was presumably quite prepared to perjure himself in court to give false evidence about the location of the U turn. I never did find out why the case was dropped, perhaps he chickened out at the last minute, I don't know.
According to many on PH, this sort of behaviour, and the behaviour in the BMW case above, simply doesn't occur in the police service at all.
Following my experiences I will never, ever trust the police again. Some if them are little more than criminals in uniform. I appreciate that many are not like that, but as an ordinary member of the public, I have absolutely no way of telling which are which, and they have infinitely more powers to enforce their will on me than I do.
zarjaz1991 said:
According to many on PH, this sort of behaviour, and the behaviour in the BMW case above, simply doesn't occur in the police service at all.
I'm not aware of anyone on PH who claims that sort of thing never happens at all. Of course it does because no screening system is perfect so you'll always get some bad eggs. On the other hand, there are several people on here who keep insisting that sort of thing is the norm for policing, which it absolutely is NOT.
As for the "BMW case above", even on the face of the (undoubtedly slanted) Daily Wail report, the guy deserved to be pulled up. Sounding a horn like that is, in and of itself, an aggressive act - it's there to warn of danger, not to rebuke people.
Saying it's "instinctive for a train driver who doesn't have a brake" is absolute bull - if that was the case he would still have been sounding his horn as he plowed into the back of them having released the dead-mans handle / steering wheel as his instincts had been trained to do.
He was doing what far too many drivers to and allowing his annoyance at their (perfectly reasonable in the circumstances) driving get the better of him in an aggressive way.
It's only a shame they didn't think to go for one of the more appropriate charges I suggested above.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff