A case of perjury? You decide.
Discussion
motco said:
I found this site almost by accident. It appears to be a case not entirely unrelated to another on here recently. See here
Sorry the very fact that it states covered up and ignored by the IPCC means I don't need to read any further. IPCC cover up and ignore something the police have done wrong?!! Never. IPCC make a skapegoat of an officer and put them though the mill for the sake of placating a vexatious complaint. Everytime.Mr_annie_vxr said:
motco said:
I found this site almost by accident. It appears to be a case not entirely unrelated to another on here recently. See here
Sorry the very fact that it states covered up and ignored by the IPCC means I don't need to read any further. IPCC cover up and ignore something the police have done wrong?!! Never. IPCC make a skapegoat of an officer and put them though the mill for the sake of placating a vexatious complaint. Everytime.There are hundreds upon hundreds of people convicted based on evidence of speeds 'guessed' by operators at half a mile away.
I admire his strength in following up the case despite him being fully aquitted of his crime but is now going after the system itself.
Some hope for Peter Ward I think and perhaps a contribution to the reason why the CPS would rather pay out thousands upon thousands of taxpayers money on legal costs rather than to just supply the full and unedited evidence evidence against him!
It sounds like he's having the same trouble as some people were in the recent Reliant Robin thread. Good on him for getting acquitted at court, but getting acquitted does not prove that the prosecution were lying - just that he's managed to introduce an element of doubt.
He's been down every avenue of complaint and got absolutely nowhere.
He'll never be happy.
He's been down every avenue of complaint and got absolutely nowhere.
He'll never be happy.
R_U_LOCAL said:
It sounds like he's having the same trouble as some people were in the recent Reliant Robin thread. Good on him for getting acquitted at court, but getting acquitted does not prove that the prosecution were lying - just that he's managed to introduce an element of doubt.
He's been down every avenue of complaint and got absolutely nowhere.
He'll never be happy.
Perhaps an arguement for introducing "not proven" and "not guilty" down south?He's been down every avenue of complaint and got absolutely nowhere.
He'll never be happy.
What training does a scamera operator get before they can "fire" a gun "on duty"?
I, like many others, feel that these people are generally unemployable socially enept idiots who can not gain employment in any other walk of life, and so are consigned to spending their lives in a mocked up van pointing guns at the outside lane of mainly safe roads nowhere near civilisation getting a semi-on when they catch someone in an expensive car doing 10+3mph over the limit.
I liked the old days - go a bit over the limit but don't drive like a t
t, and you'd fancy your chances of getting away scot free. Speeding tickets seemed like amilder form of DWDCA - plod knew you weren't quite driving how you ought to, and gave you a ticket to remind you to be a bit more sensible without dragging it through court. That is why Ins Co's used to weight 3 points against you (IMO).
Rant over!!
I, like many others, feel that these people are generally unemployable socially enept idiots who can not gain employment in any other walk of life, and so are consigned to spending their lives in a mocked up van pointing guns at the outside lane of mainly safe roads nowhere near civilisation getting a semi-on when they catch someone in an expensive car doing 10+3mph over the limit.
I liked the old days - go a bit over the limit but don't drive like a t
t, and you'd fancy your chances of getting away scot free. Speeding tickets seemed like amilder form of DWDCA - plod knew you weren't quite driving how you ought to, and gave you a ticket to remind you to be a bit more sensible without dragging it through court. That is why Ins Co's used to weight 3 points against you (IMO).Rant over!!
Bing o said:
What training does a scamera operator get before they can "fire" a gun "on duty"?
I, like many others, feel that these people are generally unemployable socially enept idiots who can not gain employment in any other walk of life, and so are consigned to spending their lives in a mocked up van pointing guns at the outside lane of mainly safe roads nowhere near civilisation getting a semi-on when they catch someone in an expensive car doing 10+3mph over the limit.
Bit harsh surely. Dont tar them all with the same brush, they're just making a living. I, like many others, feel that these people are generally unemployable socially enept idiots who can not gain employment in any other walk of life, and so are consigned to spending their lives in a mocked up van pointing guns at the outside lane of mainly safe roads nowhere near civilisation getting a semi-on when they catch someone in an expensive car doing 10+3mph over the limit.
Greendubber said:
Bing o said:
What training does a scamera operator get before they can "fire" a gun "on duty"?
I, like many others, feel that these people are generally unemployable socially enept idiots who can not gain employment in any other walk of life, and so are consigned to spending their lives in a mocked up van pointing guns at the outside lane of mainly safe roads nowhere near civilisation getting a semi-on when they catch someone in an expensive car doing 10+3mph over the limit.
Bit harsh surely. Dont tar them all with the same brush, they're just making a living. I, like many others, feel that these people are generally unemployable socially enept idiots who can not gain employment in any other walk of life, and so are consigned to spending their lives in a mocked up van pointing guns at the outside lane of mainly safe roads nowhere near civilisation getting a semi-on when they catch someone in an expensive car doing 10+3mph over the limit.
Quinny said:
Not harsh at all. I'd say he went a bit easy on them.
I once tried to engage one in a sensible conversation. Won't make that mistake again.
So you dont think what he typed is harsh at all?. I once tried to engage one in a sensible conversation. Won't make that mistake again.
I think its blatant bashing of someone for the job they do based on peoples preconceived opinions of the job based on very little or no fact what so ever.
To be fair I wouldn't expect anything else on here if I'm being honest.
Greendubber said:
Quinny said:
Not harsh at all. I'd say he went a bit easy on them.
I once tried to engage one in a sensible conversation. Won't make that mistake again.
So you dont think what he typed is harsh at all?. I once tried to engage one in a sensible conversation. Won't make that mistake again.
I think its blatant bashing of someone for the job they do based on peoples preconceived opinions of the job based on very little or no fact what so ever.
To be fair I wouldn't expect anything else on here if I'm being honest.
Greendubber said:
How are the operators responsible for screwing up road safety though?. My point is its not the operators themselves.
But it is something to do with them because they are doing that job; they are complicit in the overall process. They can choose other jobs.[quote]
To just abuse someone for the job they have to do to make some cash to pay the bills is just a bit much I feel.
Greendubber said:
How are the operators responsible for screwing up road safety though?. My point is its not the operators themselves.
But it is something to do with them because they are doing that job; they are complicit in the overall process. They can choose other jobs.Greendubber said:
To just abuse someone for the job they have to do to make some cash to pay the bills is just a bit much I feel.
When you observe the actions, statements and policies that the partnerships emit, it is clear that they exist to do something more than 'just a job' I'm afraid...Greendubber said:
Again, my point is, is it the operators or the people further up the line pulling the strings and telling them where to go?.
I'm not saying that they're always correct in where they're parked, I saw one today and if I'd have had a camera I'd have taken a pic and sent it to Warwickshire Camera Partnership and asking them what they thought they were doing parking up there.
I'm just not convinced its the operators themselves that decide where to operate, more likely someone saying 'right, today we're going to hit this stretch of road'...for whatever reason.
The operators probably are directed where to park up. My issue is that if they really cared about their job, they should refuse to park up at the dodgy locations. By not caring, they contribute in part to the overall picture.I'm not saying that they're always correct in where they're parked, I saw one today and if I'd have had a camera I'd have taken a pic and sent it to Warwickshire Camera Partnership and asking them what they thought they were doing parking up there.
I'm just not convinced its the operators themselves that decide where to operate, more likely someone saying 'right, today we're going to hit this stretch of road'...for whatever reason.
PS sorry for previous bodged quoting!
Quinny said:
Greendubber said:
Quinny said:
Not harsh at all. I'd say he went a bit easy on them.
I once tried to engage one in a sensible conversation. Won't make that mistake again.
So you dont think what he typed is harsh at all?. I once tried to engage one in a sensible conversation. Won't make that mistake again.
I think its blatant bashing of someone for the job they do based on peoples preconceived opinions of the job based on very little or no fact what so ever.
To be fair I wouldn't expect anything else on here if I'm being honest.
Next you'll be saying "they were just following orders" Oh you did say that didn't you???
Edited by Greendubber on Wednesday 18th July 00:56
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff