police issue parking ticket then move cones
Discussion
Why do people always feel the need to blame bullying at school. What that has to do with anything I don't know. Can't get the video. Experience tells me in these cases there is normaly a lot more than the video has to show. However there is nothing to say that in this case the officer may not just be an arse. I don't have all the evidence to make a correct decision.
Becaus some people who were bullied at school consequently want to find a position of responsibility. Look, I only said it in jest; us lawyers also get an unfair ribbing from time to time. The copper in this instance has literally "moved the goalposts" so he (specifically) is surely is an arse...
RichBurley said:
Becaus some people who were bullied at school consequently want to find a position of responsibility. Look, I only said it in jest; us lawyers also get an unfair ribbing from time to time. The copper in this instance has literally "moved the goalposts" so he (specifically) is surely is an arse...
no you dont you deserve it
SplatSpeed said:
RichBurley said:
Becaus some people who were bullied at school consequently want to find a position of responsibility. Look, I only said it in jest; us lawyers also get an unfair ribbing from time to time. The copper in this instance has literally "moved the goalposts" so he (specifically) is surely is an arse...
no you dont you deserve it
Punctuation?
"Talk to the hand, the face isn't listening, girlfriend"
chrispy porker said:
Why not wait until the IPCC have finished before casting aspersions?
I note the driver paid the ticket.Despite the video 'evidence'
I note the driver paid the ticket.Despite the video 'evidence'
article said:
Mr Savage told BBC News he only paid the £30 fixed penalty because it would cost about £300 to contest the matter
Just 'cos someone pays the fine it doesn't automatically say they are guilty.....
Edited by esselte on Friday 27th April 14:21
Near the end of the video you can see that three cones cover the road from the side street to the main road. It appears that the guy parked between two cones, one having been moved a little from its central position. Also, as he lives there he must have well known what the cones were for.
esselte said:
chrispy porker said:
Why not wait until the IPCC have finished before casting aspersions?
I note the driver paid the ticket.Despite the video 'evidence'
I note the driver paid the ticket.Despite the video 'evidence'
article said:
Mr Savage told BBC News he only paid the £30 fixed penalty because it would cost about £300 to contest the matter
Just 'cos someone pays the fine it doesn't automatically say they are guilty.....
Edited by esselte on Friday 27th April 14:21
Would you pay if you had a video proving your innocence? I wouldn't.
chrispy porker said:
esselte said:
chrispy porker said:
Why not wait until the IPCC have finished before casting aspersions?
I note the driver paid the ticket.Despite the video 'evidence'
I note the driver paid the ticket.Despite the video 'evidence'
article said:
Mr Savage told BBC News he only paid the £30 fixed penalty because it would cost about £300 to contest the matter
Just 'cos someone pays the fine it doesn't automatically say they are guilty.....
Edited by esselte on Friday 27th April 14:21
Would you pay if you had a video proving your innocence? I wouldn't.
Well, the way things seem to go when it's BiB versus MoP I'm not so sure.....
Edited by esselte on Friday 27th April 15:09
nobleguy said:
But we're all 'encouraged' to pay up by threatening further action which scares most people into paying.
Are you saying that the video is lying?
Are you saying that the video is lying?
I think the point is the video doesn't always tell the whole story. Video can be very usefull. It can also when shown out a context or only certain clips give a different impression. Lets see the whole video and get a bit more info about the problem there and why the cones were put in place.
mr_annie_vxr said:
nobleguy said:
But we're all 'encouraged' to pay up by threatening further action which scares most people into paying.
Are you saying that the video is lying?
Are you saying that the video is lying?
I think the point is the video doesn't always tell the whole story. Video can be very usefull. It can also when shown out a context or only certain clips give a different impression. Lets see the whole video and get a bit more info about the problem there and why the cones were put in place.
I agree, shame the CPS dont when the boots on the other foot isnt it?
chrispy porker said:
THe CPS don't investigate.
This incident will be. Then a decision will be made. Until then, as with other threads the anti's will allege police wrongdoing as usual, based on what they think they know.
None of us know what the truth is, so lets leave it at that.?
Fat Chance methinks.
This incident will be. Then a decision will be made. Until then, as with other threads the anti's will allege police wrongdoing as usual, based on what they think they know.
None of us know what the truth is, so lets leave it at that.?
Fat Chance methinks.
I was commenting on the availability of the 'full' video, which as you say may paint tis incident in adifferent light, however it appears that the CPS do their best to deny motorists that right when requested.
But this is a video that, presumably, is being used for an investigation into whether an offence has been committed by a Police Officer.
It will be viewed,in its entirety to see what is on there, having been produced by a person who is, presumably, making a complaint.
I cannot see what this investigation has to do with the CPS at this stage as it is far from clear whether an offence has been committed.
It will be the police, probably under IPCA supervision who will view it, and make a decision as to whether there is evidence enough to present to the CPS.
The video has been provided by the complainant, as I understand it, not the police.
I don't see how this is comparable to disclosure at court I am afraid.
It will be viewed,in its entirety to see what is on there, having been produced by a person who is, presumably, making a complaint.
I cannot see what this investigation has to do with the CPS at this stage as it is far from clear whether an offence has been committed.
It will be the police, probably under IPCA supervision who will view it, and make a decision as to whether there is evidence enough to present to the CPS.
The video has been provided by the complainant, as I understand it, not the police.
I don't see how this is comparable to disclosure at court I am afraid.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff