Bad Policing Mk 2
Discussion
I'd to have a moan as there seem to be a minority of badly behaved policeman who make the whole lot look like a self protecting Blairite money centred Gestapo. Or am I just old fashioned? ... Just as I expect to walk down the street at night and expect not to be mugged by a bunch of chavs, when I get pulled by the securitate, I expect to be treated like a rational adult. My recent observations seem to show that there is insufficient screening to filter out with people with poor interpersonal skills, or at least failure to train the "dross" which makes it through the recruiting drive.
I was a passenger in a vehicle last night and despite trying to blame everyone but the people in the meat wagon, I am forced to think that policing isn't what it used to be, also that as a responsible law abiding member of the community, they are the enemy.
So, last night my chum and I decided we were bored and it was time to check out a band in a local pub about 7 miles away, connected by an A Road. We were going to take his jeep, ditch it at the pub and get a taxi/walk home. (bearing in mind his jeep has no doors or roof and is a competition vehicle and rather dirty). So, we get onto the A road and drive off at a sensible speed, we then attract a car about 15ft behind our bumper flashing its headlights (bearing in mind that this is a fast road and overtaking is difficult) Lukey decided to give it some beans and the same process happened. We thought they were Kevs and gave it some major beans. So, we hit a village and slowed down to the speed limit (as Lukey is no boy racer) and decided to keep at that speed, where the car put it's blue lights on. It was impossible to see that it was a police car even at that short distance.
So, the upshot of it was that Lukey had a rear light out. The policeman then launched into the critical parent attitude of "what is wrong with sirs jeep" (it is fully legal, insured/taxed/mot'd) and they were basically really looking for things, the cop settled on 3 points and a £60 fine for not having a front bumper (most jeeps don't) When Lukey exclaimed that he would like a producer and would have every niggle fixed in a few days, the chap refused and insisted on the fine for this one thing. So, they decided to breathalise him as well. So listening to this good cop/bad cop transaction I decided to ask the WPC (other cop) what the reasoning was behind this.
I said "I am familiar with actions equalling conseqences, can you tell me the actions which resulted in this", she said "You had a rear light out" so I said "Would you mind explaining why you drove on our bumper for 4 miles before you pulled us over" at which point she had no answer and proceeded to remind me that she was a cop and had the big stick and that was it.
Is it just me, or should cops have to be able to explain why they are pulling someone? I am aware that driving on the road with a broken rear light is very naughty but they just seemed hellbent on
ing people up.
It is very difficult to have a sensible view on the situation apart from being disappointed with them.
I was a passenger in a vehicle last night and despite trying to blame everyone but the people in the meat wagon, I am forced to think that policing isn't what it used to be, also that as a responsible law abiding member of the community, they are the enemy.
So, last night my chum and I decided we were bored and it was time to check out a band in a local pub about 7 miles away, connected by an A Road. We were going to take his jeep, ditch it at the pub and get a taxi/walk home. (bearing in mind his jeep has no doors or roof and is a competition vehicle and rather dirty). So, we get onto the A road and drive off at a sensible speed, we then attract a car about 15ft behind our bumper flashing its headlights (bearing in mind that this is a fast road and overtaking is difficult) Lukey decided to give it some beans and the same process happened. We thought they were Kevs and gave it some major beans. So, we hit a village and slowed down to the speed limit (as Lukey is no boy racer) and decided to keep at that speed, where the car put it's blue lights on. It was impossible to see that it was a police car even at that short distance.
So, the upshot of it was that Lukey had a rear light out. The policeman then launched into the critical parent attitude of "what is wrong with sirs jeep" (it is fully legal, insured/taxed/mot'd) and they were basically really looking for things, the cop settled on 3 points and a £60 fine for not having a front bumper (most jeeps don't) When Lukey exclaimed that he would like a producer and would have every niggle fixed in a few days, the chap refused and insisted on the fine for this one thing. So, they decided to breathalise him as well. So listening to this good cop/bad cop transaction I decided to ask the WPC (other cop) what the reasoning was behind this.
I said "I am familiar with actions equalling conseqences, can you tell me the actions which resulted in this", she said "You had a rear light out" so I said "Would you mind explaining why you drove on our bumper for 4 miles before you pulled us over" at which point she had no answer and proceeded to remind me that she was a cop and had the big stick and that was it.
Is it just me, or should cops have to be able to explain why they are pulling someone? I am aware that driving on the road with a broken rear light is very naughty but they just seemed hellbent on
ing people up. It is very difficult to have a sensible view on the situation apart from being disappointed with them.
Same thing happened to me years ago when I was out at night in my beaten up Type 2 van. I pulled over, asked what the problem was and was told I had a rear number plate light out by one BiB whilst the other walked round the vehicle.
I didn't give them any aggro, said I'd fix it in the morning and was sent on my way with a 'Don't forget sir.' from the BiB.
It's all down to attitude I guess.
I didn't give them any aggro, said I'd fix it in the morning and was sent on my way with a 'Don't forget sir.' from the BiB.
It's all down to attitude I guess.
I'm sorry, but I'm with the OP on this one, it sounds from the OP's account of events that the BiB were totally OTT and obviously looking for someone to give a ticket to regardless. Sounds to me like they were tailgating dangerously, trying to force a speeding offence.
Most BiB are brilliant, these clowns shouldn't be in a uniform.
I'll save some other posters the trouble:
1. I'm wrong
2. I'm insulting all BiB
3. There's no such thing as "pushing" trying to make people go faster
4. The OP is obviously lying
Yeah right......
Most BiB are brilliant, these clowns shouldn't be in a uniform.
I'll save some other posters the trouble:
1. I'm wrong
2. I'm insulting all BiB
3. There's no such thing as "pushing" trying to make people go faster
4. The OP is obviously lying
Yeah right......
Edited by andmole on Sunday 11th March 16:46
Edited by andmole on Sunday 11th March 16:46
there are two issues here;
the jeep was fecked
but
it dues sound as though they were trying to 'entrap' him for a speeding offence. this has happened to a friend of mine and it isn't on.
all you can do is put yourself in a a position that all they can do is get you for speeding..always have the car in good condition etc.
the thing i thought when i read this was.."can they actually do you for no bumper then..?what about all the minis, mk1/2 escorts, beetles etc without them..?
the jeep was fecked
but
it dues sound as though they were trying to 'entrap' him for a speeding offence. this has happened to a friend of mine and it isn't on.
all you can do is put yourself in a a position that all they can do is get you for speeding..always have the car in good condition etc.
the thing i thought when i read this was.."can they actually do you for no bumper then..?what about all the minis, mk1/2 escorts, beetles etc without them..?
Having a think about in hindsight, the jeep has passed the last 3 MOT's with no bumper and now it gets 3 points/£60.
We figured he was going for the speeding offence which when he slowed down to below the speed limit through the village, they went for the "I'm going to him for something" approach.
In the future when I am followed, I will check if they are a cop car with my rear spot.
All in all, it isn't cricket and not in the interests of good cop/public relations at the moment which I think are rather important.
I suppose they have targets.
We figured he was going for the speeding offence which when he slowed down to below the speed limit through the village, they went for the "I'm going to
him for something" approach. In the future when I am followed, I will check if they are a cop car with my rear spot.
All in all, it isn't cricket and not in the interests of good cop/public relations at the moment which I think are rather important.
I suppose they have targets.
40 years ago if you'd have given them a load of attituide when stopped, they'd probably have given you a slap & put you in the back of a van. Now you're complaining about the Police today.
You were in a dirty competition vehicle, with a light out & no front bumper, giving it beans, then you want to question them about their authority to stop you.
You were in a dirty competition vehicle, with a light out & no front bumper, giving it beans, then you want to question them about their authority to stop you.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 11th March 17:56
Reminds me of an incident a long time ago (shortly after I passed my test) - police bike followed me from Weybridge to Esher for several miles (unobserved by me at night) though various speed limits, all the while he was waiting to see if I'd go just a bit faster.
He wanted to see how fast I'd break the limit by, and obviously didn't care anything about safety or he'd have pulled me over earlier.
Now years later, nothing has changed.
He wanted to see how fast I'd break the limit by, and obviously didn't care anything about safety or he'd have pulled me over earlier.
Now years later, nothing has changed.
vonhosen said:
40 years ago if you'd have given them a load of attituide when stopped, they'd probably have given you a slap & put you in the back of a van. Now you're complaining about the Police today.
You were in a dirty competition vehicle, with a light out & no front bumper, giving it beans, then you want to question them about their authority to stop you.
You were in a dirty competition vehicle, with a light out & no front bumper, giving it beans, then you want to question them about their authority to stop you.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 11th March 17:56
I didn't give them a load of attitude, I merely asked her to explain herself. I'm well voiced with not stirring up sensitive types and asking the right questions, it's my job.
Also, I didn't add that at no time did we break the speed limit.
Anyway, in my opinion, the cops need to sort their
ing attitude out with the public as a rule of thumb, just because 95% of the vermin they deal with are chavscum, it is no need to treat all the same. s. Edited by love machine on Sunday 11th March 18:15
love machine said:
vonhosen said:
40 years ago if you'd have given them a load of attituide when stopped, they'd probably have given you a slap & put you in the back of a van. Now you're complaining about the Police today.
You were in a dirty competition vehicle, with a light out & no front bumper, giving it beans, then you want to question them about their authority to stop you.
You were in a dirty competition vehicle, with a light out & no front bumper, giving it beans, then you want to question them about their authority to stop you.
I didn't give them a load of attitude, I merely asked her to explain herself. I'm well voiced with not stirring up sensitive types and asking the right questions, it's my job.
Also, I didn't add that at no time did we break the speed limit.
I didn't say you did say that you were speeding.
You said beans, I said beans.
love machine said:
Anyway, in my opinion, the cops need to sort their
ing attitude out with the public as a rule of thumb, just because 95% of the vermin they deal with are chavscum, it is no need to treat all the same. s.Charming.
Personally I'll give people the respect they deserve, but that doesn't mean they won't get reported where they commit offences.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 11th March 18:29
vonhosen said:
40 years ago if you'd have given them a load of attituide when stopped, they'd probably have given you a slap & put you in the back of a van. Now you're complaining about the Police today.
You were in a dirty competition vehicle, with a light out & no front bumper, giving it beans, then you want to question them about their authority to stop you.
You were in a dirty competition vehicle, with a light out & no front bumper, giving it beans, then you want to question them about their authority to stop you.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 11th March 17:56
Wrong, not a competition vehicle!!!!!!!!!
It was fully taxed, MOT'ed and insured!!!!!
Therefore it was a road vehicle that happens to be used for competition.
Splitting hairs? Maybe, but that is exactly the sort of semantics that some posters love to retreat into when challenged about things, to avoid admitting that maybe others have a point.
Maybe the OP did fail the so called "attitude test", but in my book so did these particular BiB.
andmole said:
vonhosen said:
40 years ago if you'd have given them a load of attituide when stopped, they'd probably have given you a slap & put you in the back of a van. Now you're complaining about the Police today.
You were in a dirty competition vehicle, with a light out & no front bumper, giving it beans, then you want to question them about their authority to stop you.
You were in a dirty competition vehicle, with a light out & no front bumper, giving it beans, then you want to question them about their authority to stop you.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 11th March 17:56
Wrong, not a competition vehicle!!!!!!!!!
It was fully taxed, MOT'ed and insured!!!!!
Therefore it was a road vehicle that happens to be used for competition.
Splitting hairs? Maybe, but that is exactly the sort of semantics that some posters love to retreat into when challenged about things, to avoid admitting that maybe others have a point.
Maybe the OP did fail the so called "attitude test", but in my book so did these particular BiB.
The OP said it was a competition vehicle, I have therefore taken him at his word.
If you want to argue the semantics of it, I suggest you do it with him then. It really doesn't make any difference to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 11th March 20:49
vonhosen said:
40 years ago if you'd have given them a load of attituide when stopped, they'd probably have given you a slap & put you in the back of a van. Now you're complaining about the Police today.
You were in a dirty competition vehicle, with a light out & no front bumper, giving it beans, then you want to question them about their authority to stop you.
You were in a dirty competition vehicle, with a light out & no front bumper, giving it beans, then you want to question them about their authority to stop you.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 11th March 17:56
40 years ago it was acceptable to call people ni**ers and throw them downstairs, are we hoping for the good old days to return, or would you like to be brought up to date with your preferred method of policing the speed camera.
They were driving a road legal vehicle with a light out, was the response proportionate.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff