Accurate Accounts of How we Police

[Tonyrec]

What makes this Forum enjoyable is the fact that everyone on it has a different viewpoint coupled with different life experiences that they can share with others in a constructive way.

I, as a serving Police Officer like to give honest, accurate and practical answers to a variety of questions and viewpoints.

Some of my replies are accepted and some are quite rightly challenged. Everything that i post is based on experience and training and not purely fabricated to start an argument or to make me look good.
I dont have a problem with people challenging me but what i do object to is when my posts are altered to give different replies and to make either me or the Police service look as if we are unprofessional in any way.

Some people like to have these honest answers which give an insight into operational Policing and the training that is given, and i dont think the forum would be the same without this input from me and other serving/retired Officers.

I, like any other person will only reply to posts that i feel are made in good faith and not to the ones that are antagonistic or rude in any way. I will, and have done in the past, continue to give advice to those genuine people who request it.

Sorry to rant on about this but i feel that it needed to be said seeing as we have sooooo many 'new' people on the Forum.

[Tonyrec]

Cheers chaps, i havent been posting for a while but what i have noticed that there hasnt been the regular inputs from the Forum BiB for one reason and another.

If im not on here for a while and you do need an input, please dont hesitate to PM me and i will reply.

[Tonyrec]

streaky said:

Tonyrec said: [ ... ] I dont have a problem with people challenging me but what i do object to is when my posts are altered to give different replies and to make either me or the Police service look as if we are unprofessional in any way. Tony - do you mean that your words are altered when you are quoted or that your original post is being in some way altered? If the latter, that's a matter for Ted; if the former, that's bad practice and I for one deplore it - Streaky

Hi Streaky,

My words have been altered in a reply to a recent post entitled 'Following Trafpol at 90-100mph'.
It was a serious reply based on operational needs and it was altered to read ' whilst Off duty' etc etc.
On this particular occasion i could write a short story on the why's and wherefors of our speed and road positioning but i do try and condense things in the hope that the people reading it try and understand without going on the offensive.

Dont get me wrong, we are all human and make mistakes but the lesson is to learn from them.
Believe me that over the last 23 years ive made a few.

[TonyRec]

justinp1 said:

Hi Tony, Just read the title of the thread, and thought i should comment. I am guessing from your comment to Streaky that this is about our discourse on the other thread, and it seems to make reference to one of my posts. I would have been more than happy to send a couple of messages by personal mail, however as it seems we are making reference to what a have written in a public way, I feel I should be allowed to defend, and correct the description of my actions. I would also like to make it clear that whilst you feel that I have 'altered' what you have said for some motive, in fact all I did was abbreviate your post, to make reference to which points in particular I was talking about in my response. It is also worth saying that where I had abbreviated your post, I clearly used the correct punctuation (...so on) (and so forth...) etc to show this. I believe that not only is this the correct way of quoting someone, but is also the custom on these forums. Of course, anyone who wants to read your original post, is clearly warned by the inclusion of the correct punctuation, and only needs to scroll back if they need. I have also accepted and apologised for the fact that I had assumed that the 'off duty' comment was related to the officer who decided to pull the Mondeo driver rather than the Mondeo driver himself. Indeed the post could have been read in two ways, and the way that was intended I only understood when you pointed it out! Whilst my clearly marked abbreviations of what you posted has been so publically denounced as 'alterations', I hope that you can also consider your own post made after your criticism of me. At 23.45 you quoted my 17 line post into just 4 lines, removing some important points which remain unanswered and some important supporting details. More importantly, it looks like a 'complete post' and no reference is made to any editing whatsoever. Similarly, in this thread here, started as you were angry with people 'altering' your quotes, you have complained to Streaky that your post has been altered to read (I quote) 'whilst Off duty'. The use of inverted commas is clearly designed to show that you are quoting my post, but as I am sure you will find this is a complete misquote. It also implies that I have purposely changed or added your quote to make you look unprofessional. I have not done this and would of course never have any intention whatsoever of doing this, and I am in fact quite offended that this has been implied. What I am more offended by however, is that whilst this has been incorrectly implied of my post, a new thread has been started to advertise this fact. I say again, I am quite easily contactable by a personal message on here, and if you took any offence, rightly or wrongly with anything I have written I would have rapidly either deleted or publically apologised as you see fit, if you had sent me a personal message. It goes without saying however, if you are going to make a complaint about someones conduct on here as public as possible, please make sure what you are accusing them of is factually correct, and try to make sure it is not something you will happily continue to do yourself! I hope this has put an end to this, and we can continue the original discussion about the subject in question now this is aired. Justin >> Edited by justinp1 on Monday 19th December 03:22

Justin,

The whole point of this post is to point out the problems in editing other peoples posts and by that i mean taking a synopsis which reads or can be interpreted differently by the reader.
The way that you edited my post did just that and it was plain to see.

You also point out that i have edited your post etc etc but as you will see from every other post on here, that seems to be the way its done. As you quite rightly point out, i havent quoted your whole speel, but taken out the bits in paragraph that you have written and which im responding to. The difference with what you did (intentionally or otherwise) was to take different bits from another paragraph when put together change the whole point that i was trying to make in my explanation.

As ive said before, i accept your apology and if i had taken any real issue with what you said then i would have contacted you direct, i dont believe in airing dirty washing on the Forum.

As you quite rightly point out, lets move on and hopefully everyone (especially new posters) will learn from this and we can continue to give both informative and factual information to anyone who wishes to participate.

[TonyRec]

Big Fat F'er said:

Tonyrec said: What makes this Forum enjoyable is the fact that everyone on it has a different viewpoint coupled with different life experiences that they can share with others in a constructive way. Hmmmmmm! Apart from the occasional handbags at dawn that is. Tonyrec was reported as saying...... Tonyrec said: I, as a serving Police Officer like to give honest, accurate and practical answers to a variety of questions and viewpoints. Some of my replies are accepted and some are quite rightly challenged. Everything that i post is based on experience and training and not purely fabricated to start an argument or to make me look good. I dont have a problem with people challenging me but what i do object to is my posts are altered to give different replies and to make either me or the Police service look as if we are unprofessional in any way. Some people like to have these honest answers which give an insight into operational Policing and the training that is given, and i dont think the forum would be the same without this input from me and other serving/retired Officers. I, like any other person will only reply to posts that i feel are made in good faith and not to the ones that are antagonistic or rude in any way. I will, and have done in the past, continue to give advice to those genuine people who request it. Sorry to rant on about this but i feel that it needed to be said seeing as we have sooooo many 'new' people on the Forum. However, I have rearranged your comments (like you have done on many occasions to my statements!!!), and as can be seen below it slightly alters the meaning....to paraphrase Morecambe and Wise, it's all your own words, but not necessarily in the right order. Tonyrec said: I, as a serving Police Officer like to object to operational Policing. I have fabricated my training, and dont give honest, accurate and practical answers. I have done a rant, and Some of my replies are unprofessional. my experience is a problem, i do object to the Police service, and either me or serving/retired Officers have altered an argument to make me look good. i dont think the forum is genuine, honest or an insight to a variety of questions and viewpoints. Everything that i post is rightly challenged as some are quite antagonistic or rude. I will, and have in the past, continue to give different advice to that needed to be said. with people challenging me I, like any other person, feel Sorry....not. But my posts are purely to start Some people seeing sooooo many 'new' people on the Forum as "in the way". i feel that my posts are good and people would not be the same without my input. i like me. Ah ha, the truth is out. Now you know how I felt when the young copper wrote it out for me and asked me to sign it.

Have we met before?

And your point is?

So many questions eh

[TonyRec]

711 said:

I'd rather know what the score is, even if I don't like / agree with all of it!

Cant say fairer than that

[TonyRec]

streaky said:

Whilst traditionlly the ellipsis ("..." is used to indicate a deliberate omission from quoted text, it is also used as punctuation to indicate an extended, or dramatic, pause. Some authorities recommend enclosing the (omission) ellipsis in brackets - "[ ... ]" - (as I tend to do) to distinguish between ellipses already included in quoted text, or dramatic pauses. The leading and training spaces are optional. Other authorities recommend a "dot-space-dot-space-dot" format: ". . .". It is quite correct to include a full-stop immediately after an ellipsis, thus: "....", but it does look strange after the "dot-space" format (". . ..". If the leading space is omitted and the ellipsis follows immediately upon the "end" of a word, the interpretation is that letters after the "end" of the word are omitted. Omitted letters within a word are indicated by an apostrophe. This is most likely to be seen in dramatic writing rather than in quoted text. Here endeth the lesson for this morning. Streaky

So am i right or am i wrong?

[TonyRec]

blademan said:

Nice to see you back Tonyrec. I also haven't posted for a while.....been too busy. I have got to be honest and say that you posts of late have been really fair and honest which is good for this forum. Keep up the good work. You guys are the only way that us MOP can really see what goes on "behind the scenes"

Hello stranger as well......

Nice to be back, thanks