Any West Mercia plods registered?
Discussion
I had the misfortune of being stopped (January) for allegedly speeding. An officer pulled me over and acused me of exceeding the speed limit through a village some two miles back. When I drove through the village I noticed the Police vehicle parked up on the side and made a note of my speed which, was within the limit.
He said that I had drove through the village at 45 mph and, thought it was disgusting. I argued that I had not exceeded the limit and requested to how he had calculated the speed and for which device he had used to make the calculation, quoting the names of a few devices as, I have a good knowledge of such devices.
He replied "I have a calibrated speedo" I commented that he must have the only calibrated speedo that works while his vehicle was stopped.
He then stated "Anyway you was not wearing a seat belt". Now patience was wearing a little thin at this point. I always wear a seat belt. He then said that he was going to report me for not wearing on even though, I had two passengers with me and the vehicle I was driving had blacked out (tinted) windows and he was on his todd. He even had to call a colleague on his radio to fetch him a book of tickets because he had none.
Anyway he gave me a fixed penalty notice for not wearing a seat belt. I told him that it would not be paid and that I was willing to take this matter on in court.
In May I received a summons for wait for it;
1. Failure to wear a seat belt
2. Exceeding the speed limit
3. Willfully obstructing a Officer in the course of his duty.
The case is due to be held in November.
I have reported the officer for perjury which was done straight away in January however, the proffessional standards unit at West Mercia will not investigate until the case is resolved. yea OK
I have had private investigations done into the officer who is based at Tunbury Wells which show certain things to my advantage.
Are there any other officers who also now this bent copper who are willing to make a statement about his conduct? I have allready had one.
He said that I had drove through the village at 45 mph and, thought it was disgusting. I argued that I had not exceeded the limit and requested to how he had calculated the speed and for which device he had used to make the calculation, quoting the names of a few devices as, I have a good knowledge of such devices.
He replied "I have a calibrated speedo" I commented that he must have the only calibrated speedo that works while his vehicle was stopped.
He then stated "Anyway you was not wearing a seat belt". Now patience was wearing a little thin at this point. I always wear a seat belt. He then said that he was going to report me for not wearing on even though, I had two passengers with me and the vehicle I was driving had blacked out (tinted) windows and he was on his todd. He even had to call a colleague on his radio to fetch him a book of tickets because he had none.
Anyway he gave me a fixed penalty notice for not wearing a seat belt. I told him that it would not be paid and that I was willing to take this matter on in court.
In May I received a summons for wait for it;
1. Failure to wear a seat belt
2. Exceeding the speed limit
3. Willfully obstructing a Officer in the course of his duty.
The case is due to be held in November.
I have reported the officer for perjury which was done straight away in January however, the proffessional standards unit at West Mercia will not investigate until the case is resolved. yea OK
I have had private investigations done into the officer who is based at Tunbury Wells which show certain things to my advantage.
Are there any other officers who also now this bent copper who are willing to make a statement about his conduct? I have allready had one.
Can't offer to much in the way of advice but if both your passengers can back you up to the fact you were wearing a seatbelt and perhaps also that you weren't speeding (althouh i'd imagine it would be harder to persuade a court of this) then I think that would put significant doubt on the officers story and help you a great deal.
Good luck, I'm assuming your version is spot on as there is no reason to doubt you, particularly as I once encountered two such clowns working a double act so I know it happens - thankfully not often as I'm sure PH BiB will point out. In your case it looks like some background info (dirt) on this prat and the word of your two passengers might offer enough balance of probability to get you a result.
In general I find W Mercia plod to be the hardest on drivers, though I don't have stats to prove this, just experience of driving through a large number of police regions each year with my eyes open. This is the Force that has the habit of putting 6 or 7 marked Omegas and the like on a slip under a bridge over the M5 on a sunny Sunday with PC Tripod on the bridge directing the Golf Lima Foxtrot action. They then move on to the next junction, do a U, and reverse up a slip on the other side to go over the bridge and start again. On its own a quite disgraceful waste of resources.
In general I find W Mercia plod to be the hardest on drivers, though I don't have stats to prove this, just experience of driving through a large number of police regions each year with my eyes open. This is the Force that has the habit of putting 6 or 7 marked Omegas and the like on a slip under a bridge over the M5 on a sunny Sunday with PC Tripod on the bridge directing the Golf Lima Foxtrot action. They then move on to the next junction, do a U, and reverse up a slip on the other side to go over the bridge and start again. On its own a quite disgraceful waste of resources.
The facts stated are the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth free, of all ambiguties.
I am currently building the case argument having, only received the evidence on the 19th august despite requesting the said several times.
There are one or two errors by the prosecution which, does not amount to due process and I have the receipt from 2004 for, the installation of the tinted windows. I will request or rather ask leave of the court to enter the car park and view the vehicle whilst I or another sits in the drivers seat to witness that it cannot be identified if the driver is or is not wearing a seat belt.
As for the speeding charge the officer did not at any time state that he was reporting me for the alleged offence. This fact constitutes an error. There is also case law to state that verbal communication on the roadside telling a person that he/she is being reported for allegedly speeding is, not good enough to convict.
As for willfully obstructing; pass
The officer maybe, did not expect his victim to hold a law degree. Furthermore, if my own experiance is not good enough then, my cousin is a barrister often at the bailey should I need to appeal. I will take this matter all the way.
I am currently building the case argument having, only received the evidence on the 19th august despite requesting the said several times.
There are one or two errors by the prosecution which, does not amount to due process and I have the receipt from 2004 for, the installation of the tinted windows. I will request or rather ask leave of the court to enter the car park and view the vehicle whilst I or another sits in the drivers seat to witness that it cannot be identified if the driver is or is not wearing a seat belt.
As for the speeding charge the officer did not at any time state that he was reporting me for the alleged offence. This fact constitutes an error. There is also case law to state that verbal communication on the roadside telling a person that he/she is being reported for allegedly speeding is, not good enough to convict.
As for willfully obstructing; pass
The officer maybe, did not expect his victim to hold a law degree. Furthermore, if my own experiance is not good enough then, my cousin is a barrister often at the bailey should I need to appeal. I will take this matter all the way.
Edited by cen on Sunday 20th August 20:09
cen said:
The facts stated are the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth free, of all ambiguties.
I am currently building the case argument having, only received the evidence on the 19th august despite requesting the said several times.
There are one or two errors by the prosecution which, does not amount to due process and I have the receipt from 2004 for, the installation of the tinted windows. I will request or rather ask leave of the court to enter the car park and view the vehicle whilst I or another sits in the drivers seat to witness that it cannot be identified if the driver is or is not wearing a seat belt.
As for the speeding charge the officer did not at any time state that he was reporting me for the alleged offence. This fact constitutes an error. There is also case law to state that verbal communication on the roadside telling a person that he/she is being reported for allegedly speeding is, not good enough to convict.
As for willfully obstructing; pass
The officer maybe, did not expect his victim to hold a law degree. Furthermore, if my own experiance is not good enough then, my cousin is a barrister often at the bailey should I need to appeal. I will take this matter all the way.
I am currently building the case argument having, only received the evidence on the 19th august despite requesting the said several times.
There are one or two errors by the prosecution which, does not amount to due process and I have the receipt from 2004 for, the installation of the tinted windows. I will request or rather ask leave of the court to enter the car park and view the vehicle whilst I or another sits in the drivers seat to witness that it cannot be identified if the driver is or is not wearing a seat belt.
As for the speeding charge the officer did not at any time state that he was reporting me for the alleged offence. This fact constitutes an error. There is also case law to state that verbal communication on the roadside telling a person that he/she is being reported for allegedly speeding is, not good enough to convict.
As for willfully obstructing; pass
The officer maybe, did not expect his victim to hold a law degree. Furthermore, if my own experiance is not good enough then, my cousin is a barrister often at the bailey should I need to appeal. I will take this matter all the way.
Edited by cen on Sunday 20th August 20:09
Good luck with the case Cen. Was this a solo BiB or a doubleact? I wonder if witnesses to the fact of failure to mention the speeding reporting will be good enough in court?
bond-007 said:
Good luck with the case Cen. Was this a solo BiB or a doubleact? I wonder if witnesses to the fact of failure to mention the speeding reporting will be good enough in court?
Yes there is case law which as set the precident in existance which as been used frequently by members of the pepipoo forum.
Yes the tinting of the windows is quite dark which, could be construed to be in breach of regulations however, the idiot did not pick up on this or report me for such an offence. The chap was a solo officer and he obviously did not see the passengers in the vehicle through the tint.
Andrew D said:
cen said:
I am currently building the case argument having, only received the evidence on the 19th august despite requesting the said several times.
If you're planning to make a written submission you may want to check your use of punctuation (specifically commas).Point taken Andrew. However, in mitigation the reply was somewhat hurried this morning just before I left for work hence, not giving time to checking the content for grammer errors.
A trifle petty though don't you think. Words somewhat stronger come to mind.
Andrew D said:
cen said:
I am currently building the case argument having, only received the evidence on the 19th august despite requesting the said several times.
If you're planning to make a written submission you may want to check your use of punctuation (specifically commas).The document said:
George the third by the grace of god
Of Great Britain, France and Ireland. King defender of the faith and fourth lord of the manor and soke of Kirton In Lindsey in the county of Lincoln parcel of our duchy of Cornwall
To all to whom these present sitters shall come greeting. KNOW YE that amongst the pleas inrolled in the court of our said manor and soke thus it is maintained Kirton Saturday to wit the sokemore court of our sovereign lord George the third by the grace of god of Great Britain, France and Ireland king defender of the faith and before lord of the manor and soke of Kirton in Lindsay in the county of Lincoln part of his duchy of Cornwall held at Kirton aforesaid for the manor and soke aforesaid on the fourteenth day of February in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven before William chafer Thomas Darcy and John Wilkinson.
Gentleman bailiffs of the court of the manor and soke aforesaid and Robert Epworth chipsey somby and Thomas Scotgate suitors of the manor and soke aforesaid and other suitors of the same court according to the custom of the said manor and soke for the time whereof the memory of man is not to the used and approved there.
At this court same Stephen Darcy in his proper person and in full control delivered to the bailiffs and suitors a tortain wit of right close of our lord the now king direned to the bailiffs and suitors of the court of the manor and soke aforesaid and according to the custom of the same manor and soke to be determined and executed.
Which said win follows in these words to wit George the third by the grace of god of Great Britain, France, and Ireland king defender of the faith.
To the bailiffs and suitors of the manor and the soke of Kirton in Lindsey in the county of Lincoln parcel of the duchy of Cornwall.
Greeting we command you that without delay and according to the custom of the manor and soke aforesaid you do full right to Stephen Darcy of one mefsuage twenty acres of sand, ten acres of meadow, ten acres of pasture, common of pasture for all cattle and common or turbary, with the appurtenants in east.
Stockwith which Benjamin Margras afordeth him of which we hear no more complaint thereof for want of right witness ourself at Westminster the fifteenth day of January in the seventh year of our reign gataker.
And hereupon the said Stephen Darcy delivereth to prosecute that writ in the same court in the form and name of a writ of right of our said lord the king at common law according to the custom of the manor and soke aforesaid and hath found pledges to prosecute that writ in the same court, that is to say john doe and Richard roc and desireth protefs to him to be made thereupon against the said Benjamin Margrave according to the custom of the manor and soke aforesaid.
Whereupon at this court the tame the said Benjamin Margrose and nanosloawof the court to answer the said Dancy in the plaint aforesaid without any protest and to him it is granted. And hereupon according to the custom of the manor and soke aforesaid for the time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary used and approved there the said Stephen Darcy in his own proper person demandeth against the said Benjamin Margroso the said one mefusage twenty acres of sand ten acres of meadow ten acres of pasture common of pasture for all cattle and common of turbary with appurtenants in the east. storkwith aforesaid as his right and inheritance and with the said Benjamin Margrave deporteth him of.
And whereupon he saith that he himself was seized of the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants in his domesuo of ffoo and right in the time of peato in the time of our lord the said king that now is taking of his profits thereof to the value and that such is his right he offers
Whereupon the said Benjamin Margrave, present here in court freely appeases and defends his right and his seizing when and totally and whatsoever and especially of the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenant’s as of ffoo and right and thereupon he soneth to warranty Joseph Andrews who, by William Bufforth, his attorney by warrant of attorney only authorized and present here in court and freely the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants to him warrant and hereupon the said Stephen Darcy demandeth against the said Joseph Andrew the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants in the form aforesaid.
And whereupon he saith that he himself was seized of the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants in his domesno as of ffoo and right in the time of peace in the time of our lord the said king that now is by taking the profits thereof to the value and that such is his right he offers and the said Joseph Andrews tenant by his warranty by his said attorney defends his right and his seizing when and totally and whatsoever and especially of the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenances as of ffee and right .
And he soweth thereof to warranty Richard Peele who is likewise present here in court in his proper person and freely the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants to him warranteth and hereupon the said Stephen Darcy demandest against the said Richard Peele tenant by his own warranty the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants in form aforesaid and whereupon he saith that he was seized of tenement aforesaid with the appurtenants in his domesue as od ffee and right in the time of peace in the time of our lord the said king that now is by taking the profits thereof to the value £ and that such is his right he offers £ and the said Richard Peele tenant by his warranty aforesaid defends his right and his seizing when £ and totally £ and whatsoever £ and especially of the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants of ffee and right and puts himself thereupon on the great assize of our said lord the king and demand knowledge thereof to be made whether he more right hath to hold the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants to him and his sons as tenant thereof by his warranty as he holds the same of the aforesaid Stephen Dancy to have the same tenements with the appurtenants as he above demandeth £. And he said Stephen Darcy rases sirente thereupon to impart and he hath it £ and said Richard Peele the like£ and afterward to wit at the same court the said Stephen Darcy again came here in his own proper person and the said Richard Peele though solemnly called came not again ut departed in contempt of the court and made default
Therefore it is considered by this court here that the said Stephen Darcy do recover his seizing against the said Benjamin Margrose of the tenants aforesaid with the appurtenants to hold him and his heirs quit of the said Benjamin Margrave and his heirs of the said Joseph Andrews and his heirs and also of the said Richard Peele and his heirs for ever and that the said Benjamin Margrave may have of the land of the said Joseph Andrews to the value £ and that the said Joseph Andrews may have of the land of the said Richard Peele to the value of £ and that the said Richard Peele be awarded £ and hereupon at the request of the said Stephen Darcy it is commanded Stephen Silly, underbaliff of the wapentake of Corringham parcel of said manor and soke and minister of the court aforesaid that he deliver unto the said Stephen Darcy full seizing of the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants without delay and how.
And afterwards to wit at the same court before the said bailiffs and suitors held came the said Stephen Darcy in his proper person and aforesaid fourteenth day of February delivered to the said Dancy full seizing of the tenants aforesaid here rectified that he by virtue of the precept aforesaid in form aforesaid with the appurtenances as by the said precept to him was commanded
All and singular whith at the request of the said Stephen Dancy in the tenor of these presents we have appointed to be exemplified In witness whereof we have caused the seal deputed to seal the like records within the manor and soke aforesaid to be set to these presents
Witness the right honourable Richard Earl of Scarborough head steward of the courts of the manor and soke aforesaid at Kirton aforesaid the aforesaid fourteenth day of February in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven.
Of Great Britain, France and Ireland. King defender of the faith and fourth lord of the manor and soke of Kirton In Lindsey in the county of Lincoln parcel of our duchy of Cornwall
To all to whom these present sitters shall come greeting. KNOW YE that amongst the pleas inrolled in the court of our said manor and soke thus it is maintained Kirton Saturday to wit the sokemore court of our sovereign lord George the third by the grace of god of Great Britain, France and Ireland king defender of the faith and before lord of the manor and soke of Kirton in Lindsay in the county of Lincoln part of his duchy of Cornwall held at Kirton aforesaid for the manor and soke aforesaid on the fourteenth day of February in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven before William chafer Thomas Darcy and John Wilkinson.
Gentleman bailiffs of the court of the manor and soke aforesaid and Robert Epworth chipsey somby and Thomas Scotgate suitors of the manor and soke aforesaid and other suitors of the same court according to the custom of the said manor and soke for the time whereof the memory of man is not to the used and approved there.
At this court same Stephen Darcy in his proper person and in full control delivered to the bailiffs and suitors a tortain wit of right close of our lord the now king direned to the bailiffs and suitors of the court of the manor and soke aforesaid and according to the custom of the same manor and soke to be determined and executed.
Which said win follows in these words to wit George the third by the grace of god of Great Britain, France, and Ireland king defender of the faith.
To the bailiffs and suitors of the manor and the soke of Kirton in Lindsey in the county of Lincoln parcel of the duchy of Cornwall.
Greeting we command you that without delay and according to the custom of the manor and soke aforesaid you do full right to Stephen Darcy of one mefsuage twenty acres of sand, ten acres of meadow, ten acres of pasture, common of pasture for all cattle and common or turbary, with the appurtenants in east.
Stockwith which Benjamin Margras afordeth him of which we hear no more complaint thereof for want of right witness ourself at Westminster the fifteenth day of January in the seventh year of our reign gataker.
And hereupon the said Stephen Darcy delivereth to prosecute that writ in the same court in the form and name of a writ of right of our said lord the king at common law according to the custom of the manor and soke aforesaid and hath found pledges to prosecute that writ in the same court, that is to say john doe and Richard roc and desireth protefs to him to be made thereupon against the said Benjamin Margrave according to the custom of the manor and soke aforesaid.
Whereupon at this court the tame the said Benjamin Margrose and nanosloawof the court to answer the said Dancy in the plaint aforesaid without any protest and to him it is granted. And hereupon according to the custom of the manor and soke aforesaid for the time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary used and approved there the said Stephen Darcy in his own proper person demandeth against the said Benjamin Margroso the said one mefusage twenty acres of sand ten acres of meadow ten acres of pasture common of pasture for all cattle and common of turbary with appurtenants in the east. storkwith aforesaid as his right and inheritance and with the said Benjamin Margrave deporteth him of.
And whereupon he saith that he himself was seized of the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants in his domesuo of ffoo and right in the time of peato in the time of our lord the said king that now is taking of his profits thereof to the value and that such is his right he offers
Whereupon the said Benjamin Margrave, present here in court freely appeases and defends his right and his seizing when and totally and whatsoever and especially of the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenant’s as of ffoo and right and thereupon he soneth to warranty Joseph Andrews who, by William Bufforth, his attorney by warrant of attorney only authorized and present here in court and freely the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants to him warrant and hereupon the said Stephen Darcy demandeth against the said Joseph Andrew the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants in the form aforesaid.
And whereupon he saith that he himself was seized of the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants in his domesno as of ffoo and right in the time of peace in the time of our lord the said king that now is by taking the profits thereof to the value and that such is his right he offers and the said Joseph Andrews tenant by his warranty by his said attorney defends his right and his seizing when and totally and whatsoever and especially of the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenances as of ffee and right .
And he soweth thereof to warranty Richard Peele who is likewise present here in court in his proper person and freely the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants to him warranteth and hereupon the said Stephen Darcy demandest against the said Richard Peele tenant by his own warranty the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants in form aforesaid and whereupon he saith that he was seized of tenement aforesaid with the appurtenants in his domesue as od ffee and right in the time of peace in the time of our lord the said king that now is by taking the profits thereof to the value £ and that such is his right he offers £ and the said Richard Peele tenant by his warranty aforesaid defends his right and his seizing when £ and totally £ and whatsoever £ and especially of the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants of ffee and right and puts himself thereupon on the great assize of our said lord the king and demand knowledge thereof to be made whether he more right hath to hold the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants to him and his sons as tenant thereof by his warranty as he holds the same of the aforesaid Stephen Dancy to have the same tenements with the appurtenants as he above demandeth £. And he said Stephen Darcy rases sirente thereupon to impart and he hath it £ and said Richard Peele the like£ and afterward to wit at the same court the said Stephen Darcy again came here in his own proper person and the said Richard Peele though solemnly called came not again ut departed in contempt of the court and made default
Therefore it is considered by this court here that the said Stephen Darcy do recover his seizing against the said Benjamin Margrose of the tenants aforesaid with the appurtenants to hold him and his heirs quit of the said Benjamin Margrave and his heirs of the said Joseph Andrews and his heirs and also of the said Richard Peele and his heirs for ever and that the said Benjamin Margrave may have of the land of the said Joseph Andrews to the value £ and that the said Joseph Andrews may have of the land of the said Richard Peele to the value of £ and that the said Richard Peele be awarded £ and hereupon at the request of the said Stephen Darcy it is commanded Stephen Silly, underbaliff of the wapentake of Corringham parcel of said manor and soke and minister of the court aforesaid that he deliver unto the said Stephen Darcy full seizing of the tenements aforesaid with the appurtenants without delay and how.
And afterwards to wit at the same court before the said bailiffs and suitors held came the said Stephen Darcy in his proper person and aforesaid fourteenth day of February delivered to the said Dancy full seizing of the tenants aforesaid here rectified that he by virtue of the precept aforesaid in form aforesaid with the appurtenances as by the said precept to him was commanded
All and singular whith at the request of the said Stephen Dancy in the tenor of these presents we have appointed to be exemplified In witness whereof we have caused the seal deputed to seal the like records within the manor and soke aforesaid to be set to these presents
Witness the right honourable Richard Earl of Scarborough head steward of the courts of the manor and soke aforesaid at Kirton aforesaid the aforesaid fourteenth day of February in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven.
Edited by BliarOut on Monday 21st August 11:42
Andrew D said:
Golly, that's a lot of words. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer else I'd have to read that kind of stuff, and I got bored by the third line!
The "Grace of God" bit was interesting though.
The "Grace of God" bit was interesting though.
Edited by Andrew D on Monday 21st August 12:25
And I added some punctuation to make it a bit more readable in an attempt to decipher it!Andrew D said:
Golly, that's a lot of words. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer else I'd have to read that kind of stuff, and I got bored by the third line!
The "Grace of God" bit was interesting though.
The "Grace of God" bit was interesting though.
Edited by Andrew D on Monday 21st August 12:25
Don't worry about the lawyers. At ££££ an hour they'll read as many words as you want them to read.
As a side issue where in the West Mercia area was this. As a resident of Rock, near Bewdley - not too far from tenbury Wells - I would be interested.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff