Two BiB walking along.....
Discussion
I've read much on here lately about how outrageous it is when the BiB deal with a speeding driver (cue much ranting about forming a prior opinion, uncorroborated evidence etc, no audit trail, etc..)
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
ipsg.glf said:
I've read much on here lately about how outrageous it is when the BiB deal with a speeding driver (cue much ranting about forming a prior opinion, uncorroborated evidence etc, no audit trail, etc..)
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
No, he get a free night in the Police Hotel and a warning.
ipsg.glf said:
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Same BIB ensure the driver is hung, drawn and quartered - even though they are not 'disorderly'
In the first case the police can easily tell when someone is drunk & disorderly and can even measure their blood alchohol level at the station. In the latter case the BIB guesstimate that the driver is speeding and don't need to do anything afterwards to prove it!
The fair way would have been to war the drunk to go home or be arrested, and also for them to stop the driver and warn him to keep his speed down (even if he was driving safely).
Edited by mmm-five on Tuesday 17th October 18:11
mmm-five said:
ipsg.glf said:
I've read much on here lately about how outrageous it is when the BiB deal with a speeding driver (cue much ranting about forming a prior opinion, uncorroborated evidence etc, no audit trail, etc..)
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
No, he get a free night in the Police Hotel and a warning.
ipsg.glf said:
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Same BIB ensure the driver is hung, drawn and quartered - even though they are not 'disorderly'
In the first case the police can easily tell when someone is drunk & disorderly and can even measure their blood alchohol level at the station. In the latter case the BIB guesstimate that the driver is speeding and don't need to do anything afterwards to prove it!
The fair way would have been to war the drunk to go home or be arrested, and also for them to stop the driver and warn him to keep his speed down (even if he was driving safely).
First one will typically get a FPN when they sober up & the second will typically get a FPN as well.
Evidence from a Police officer of drunkeness (for drunk & disorderly) is opinion, as is the evidence of speeding from a police officer on foot.
The first offence doesn't require opinion of two officers, the second does.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 17th October 18:22
ipsg.glf said:
I've read much on here lately about how outrageous it is when the BiB deal with a speeding driver (cue much ranting about forming a prior opinion, uncorroborated evidence etc, no audit trail, etc..)
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
They should only call into question the honesty or integrity of a charge if they knew they were innocent... this applies in both cases.
The second difference is a practical one - it is a lot more difficult to accurately assess the speed of a car for evidential purposes than it is to assess if someone is intoxicated enough to be drunk and disorderly. There is also a lot more margin for error in the first example of the speeding motorist than whether someone fulfils the criteria for drunk and disorderly.
justinp1 said:
ipsg.glf said:
I've read much on here lately about how outrageous it is when the BiB deal with a speeding driver (cue much ranting about forming a prior opinion, uncorroborated evidence etc, no audit trail, etc..)
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
They should only call into question the honesty or integrity of a charge if they knew they were innocent... this applies in both cases.
The second difference is a practical one - it is a lot more difficult to accurately assess the speed of a car for evidential purposes than it is to assess if someone is intoxicated enough to be drunk and disorderly. There is also a lot more margin for error in the first example of the speeding motorist than whether someone fulfils the criteria for drunk and disorderly.
But you have an officer to corroborate the original speeding opinion. Corroboration is not required for the assessment of drunkenness.
vonhosen said:
justinp1 said:
ipsg.glf said:
I've read much on here lately about how outrageous it is when the BiB deal with a speeding driver (cue much ranting about forming a prior opinion, uncorroborated evidence etc, no audit trail, etc..)
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
They should only call into question the honesty or integrity of a charge if they knew they were innocent... this applies in both cases.
The second difference is a practical one - it is a lot more difficult to accurately assess the speed of a car for evidential purposes than it is to assess if someone is intoxicated enough to be drunk and disorderly. There is also a lot more margin for error in the first example of the speeding motorist than whether someone fulfils the criteria for drunk and disorderly.
But you have an officer to corroborate the original speeding opinion. Corroboration is not required for the assessment of drunkenness.
Agree that there SHOULD be no reason to call into question the integrity of the BiB in either case. However the simple fact is that if it was required (I know it isn't before anybody complains), there would be a technical recourse after the original judgement to back up the assessment of D and D. There is no technical recourse to back up the judgement of speeding after the event in the circumstances mentioned, (both officers are after all only human, both as likely to make an honest mistake). In both cases the option is available to have a quiet word with the offenders concerned to warn them of their behaviour, something which in the long term MAY have far more benefits than prosecution. It is important to remember, however much you might not like it, people who protest their innocence are sometimes genuinely innocent. Many people feel that this last point has been forgotten.
vonhosen said:
justinp1 said:
ipsg.glf said:
I've read much on here lately about how outrageous it is when the BiB deal with a speeding driver (cue much ranting about forming a prior opinion, uncorroborated evidence etc, no audit trail, etc..)
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
They should only call into question the honesty or integrity of a charge if they knew they were innocent... this applies in both cases.
The second difference is a practical one - it is a lot more difficult to accurately assess the speed of a car for evidential purposes than it is to assess if someone is intoxicated enough to be drunk and disorderly. There is also a lot more margin for error in the first example of the speeding motorist than whether someone fulfils the criteria for drunk and disorderly.
But you have an officer to corroborate the original speeding opinion. Corroboration is not required for the assessment of drunkenness.
Humans are not accurate instruments for the measurement of speeding objects. Having more than one does not help.
mungo said:
andmole said:
In both cases the option is available to have a quiet word with the offenders concerned to warn them of their behaviour,
You obviously don't deal with drunken idiots - most people when so drunk they start acting disorderly DO NOT and WILL NOT listen to reason... often after given a number of chances to behave. When being booked into custody for D&D their drunkeness and behaviour is then witnessed by a custody team at the nick and they dig themselves into even deeper holes and often further offences
Fair enough, have the quiet word, if they don't respond to reason then it's their fault what happens next. No reason not to try the softly softly approach first though, except perhaps in certain circumstances.
People who are noisy, disorderly, do not and will not listen to reason, mmmmm, I teach a few, (and it is only a very few), of those. Problem is I don't have the same powers that you do, (wouldn't want them either before you start). Makes for an interesting life, and before you ask, yes I do get swore at, and I have been assaulted, (no action taken against pupil), haven't been spat at yet, probably only a matter of time though.
mungo said:
mmm-five said:
In the first case the police can easily tell when someone is drunk & disorderly and can even measure their blood alchohol level at the station.
There is absolutely no requirement at all to measure someones blood alcohol level for the offence of drunk and disorderly
Seems little silly really. How can you be sure they are drunk?
There was a documentry fairly recently about someone being arrested on D&D for behaving oddly and it turning out to be something serious (I think a brain haemorrhage?).
ipsg.glf said:
I've read much on here lately about how outrageous it is when the BiB deal with a speeding driver (cue much ranting about forming a prior opinion, uncorroborated evidence etc, no audit trail, etc..)
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
I don't think they do. I think they question the use of resources. The public (and me) find the seemingly endless cries of shortage of money and lack of manpower rather questionable when there appears to be money and manpower for pointless speed traps.
sultanbrown said:
vonhosen said:
justinp1 said:
ipsg.glf said:
I've read much on here lately about how outrageous it is when the BiB deal with a speeding driver (cue much ranting about forming a prior opinion, uncorroborated evidence etc, no audit trail, etc..)
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
They should only call into question the honesty or integrity of a charge if they knew they were innocent... this applies in both cases.
The second difference is a practical one - it is a lot more difficult to accurately assess the speed of a car for evidential purposes than it is to assess if someone is intoxicated enough to be drunk and disorderly. There is also a lot more margin for error in the first example of the speeding motorist than whether someone fulfils the criteria for drunk and disorderly.
But you have an officer to corroborate the original speeding opinion. Corroboration is not required for the assessment of drunkenness.
Humans are not accurate instruments for the measurement of speeding objects. Having more than one does not help.
They do not have to accurately measure it. It just has to be sufficiently above the limit that it is obvious to both of them (in their experience), that it is above the limit.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 17th October 19:48
autismuk said:
ipsg.glf said:
I've read much on here lately about how outrageous it is when the BiB deal with a speeding driver (cue much ranting about forming a prior opinion, uncorroborated evidence etc, no audit trail, etc..)
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
Two BiB are walking along a high street, they witness a young lad who is clearly drunk and disorderly. There is no CCTV of the incident. He is arrested and processed. That will include pocket notebook entries and statements.
Sometime later the same 2 BiB are walking the same route and both form an opinion that a car is speeding. Again there is no CCTV of the incident. The driver is issued with a FPN for excess speed.
Now, how is it that most people would accept the first incident but the second, they would suddenly call into question the BiB honesty/integrity?
I don't think they do. I think they question the use of resources. The public (and me) find the seemingly endless cries of shortage of money and lack of manpower rather questionable when there appears to be money and manpower for pointless speed traps.
Not paid for from Police budgets & no hit on resources.
It is paid for by the speeders.
r32 said:
vonhosen said:
First one will typically get a FPN when they sober up & the second will typically get a FPN as well.
I'm betting the fact you used the words 'will typically' for D&D in reality means 'is unlikely to'.
No, not at all.
Is likely to infact.
They love dishing them out in the custody office.
[quote=mmm-five.[/quote]
The fair way would have been to war the drunk to go home or be arrested, and also for them to stop the driver and warn him to keep his speed down (even if he was driving safely).
Don't forget that this is Blairs "Better " Britain - you're quoting from Dixon era.
Although - nothing said about the discretion factor - was the driver slightly over or hooning it, and could the cops have stopped him to warn him---think today's PC would wonder if the extra typing was worth a booking, or just a quiet word?
The DD - depends on the level - perhaps the cops saved his life - so instead of shouting at them for lifting him , we should look at it from the angle that he was too p'eed to get home and could end up sleeping in the gutter, and dieing from cold.Only people getting close to their quantity of drunks is taxi drivers ( pubs - well that an offence)--because drunks mess up seats and cab is off road by law till it's cleaned up.So a cabbie will suss up a fare before stopping at chucking out time.
(BTW -Mungo - do you go on a course to estimate the level of intoxication - or by experience
)
The fair way would have been to war the drunk to go home or be arrested, and also for them to stop the driver and warn him to keep his speed down (even if he was driving safely).
Edited by mmm-five on Tuesday 17th October 18:11
[/quote] Don't forget that this is Blairs "Better " Britain - you're quoting from Dixon era.
Although - nothing said about the discretion factor - was the driver slightly over or hooning it, and could the cops have stopped him to warn him---think today's PC would wonder if the extra typing was worth a booking, or just a quiet word?
The DD - depends on the level - perhaps the cops saved his life - so instead of shouting at them for lifting him , we should look at it from the angle that he was too p'eed to get home and could end up sleeping in the gutter, and dieing from cold.Only people getting close to their quantity of drunks is taxi drivers ( pubs - well that an offence)--because drunks mess up seats and cab is off road by law till it's cleaned up.So a cabbie will suss up a fare before stopping at chucking out time.
(BTW -Mungo - do you go on a course to estimate the level of intoxication - or by experience
) Edited by who me ? on Tuesday 17th October 21:09
mungo said:
andmole said:
mungo said:
andmole said:
In both cases the option is available to have a quiet word with the offenders concerned to warn them of their behaviour,
You obviously don't deal with drunken idiots - most people when so drunk they start acting disorderly DO NOT and WILL NOT listen to reason... often after given a number of chances to behave. When being booked into custody for D&D their drunkeness and behaviour is then witnessed by a custody team at the nick and they dig themselves into even deeper holes and often further offences
Fair enough, have the quiet word, if they don't respond to reason then it's their fault what happens next. No reason not to try the softly softly approach first though, except perhaps in certain circumstances.
People who are noisy, disorderly, do not and will not listen to reason, mmmmm, I teach a few, (and it is only a very few), of those. Problem is I don't have the same powers that you do, (wouldn't want them either before you start). Makes for an interesting life, and before you ask, yes I do get swore at, and I have been assaulted, (no action taken against pupil), haven't been spat at yet, probably only a matter of time though.
It's funny you should say that ... I could never do your job as a teacher. At least we can arrest people for disorderly behaviour or assault towards us. As a teacher your hands are tied!
There is a school in my patch which is for the worst kids that have been expelled from every other school - the teachers there are constantly being assaulted and abused ... nightmare job - Yes, police get that but at least we are able to do something about it!
Edited by mungo on Tuesday 17th October 20:49
Those are called PRU's (Pupil Referral Unit). Definitely wouldn't want to work at one of those.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff