You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Police and military jobs attract similar types of people.
Mostly poorly educated and with authoritarian and right wing views.
When they act badly, which is often, they receive support from likeminded people.
Lets support our brave boys.
I know a few left wing cops who'd be pretty offended by that. Though they tend to be quieter than the right wing ones, I'll give you that
If I did you’d be getting a ticket for something.
After a thorough tasering.
Urination in a public place would be a good start.
If you are in a car then they do have the right to ascertain your identity to make sure you have a license!
the caricature above of cops is totally wrong in my experience on both sides of the law.
One lesson I have learnt is a little civility goes a long way. Talked myself out of several fines over the years
Thank you for the confirmation Cougar. I was interested in a certain person’s assurances that the police can use force to make you comply which is, very clearly, a load of rubbish.
Also, thank you for the interest in the outcome of my event.
I wasn’t trying to be a “smart arse” deliberately to wind the police up despite this accusation that one of them made. Having been Sectioned a couple of times with the assistance of the Police, I really wanted to stay off of the radar.
I asked them eventually if they had reasonable suspicions that I had committed an offence and was I being detained? Both responses were negative so I advised them I would be on my lawful way and off I went. I don’t think they were particularly happy.
No force was exerted by the Police to force me to comply. Still a little manic now but I’m managing to get some sleep so I haven’t had any further interactions.
My take on the video. The driver was within his rights to do what he was doing although he could have kept his calm better and the Policeman was very much out of order and had a duty to keep his calm better. “You’re getting a ticket for something!” is pretty damning.
If you are in a car then they do have the right to ascertain your identity to make sure you have a license
They can ask but you do not have to identify yourself
you don’t have to say anything or provide any information about yourself such as your name or address, and the officer must tell you this
https://www.gov.scot/publications/guide-stop-search-scotland/
you do not have to say anything or give the police any information about yourself if you don’t want to
So, according to TJ, the police would've had every right to kneel on monksie's neck until he complied/died/gave them his name/respected their authority?
So, according to TJ, the police would’ve had every right to kneel on monksie’s neck until he complied/died/gave them his name/respected their authority?
I'll hazard a guess that that wasn't what he was saying, but it seems to have got a lot of people frothing
Both being dicks but surely everyone should be concerned at the thought process behind 'you're getting a ticket for something'.
Relatively minor you could say but the fact that when angry he jumped to that is pretty telling. And his conflict resolution training needs some serious revisiting.
YouTube lawyer here... AIUI, under section 163 of the Road Traffic act, you must identify yourself when stopped whilst driving and asked to by the Police. You must also produce evidence of MOT, insurance and driving licence when asked.
It is widely recognised people may not carry this in the vehicle (it is often specifically advised against) and a 7 day producer will be issued. Again, AIUI, this does not override the requirement to produce when asked and in theory, you could be prosecuted for not doing so. In practice, this doesn't happen as it's recognised it's unreasonable to prosecute people for complying with contradictory Police advice...
So, according to TJ, the police would’ve had every right to kneel on monksie’s neck until he complied/died/gave them his name/respected their authority?
Yes, that's exactly what he said.
Fud.
Ta squirrelking - nice use of "fud" as well!
Yes, fair point. I was being facetious and dramatic.
Quick version- both might be dicks, but civilians are allowed to be dicks, policemen in the course of their duty are not. The crazy mood swinging from "I will smash in your window" with baton in hand to 2 seconds later saying "I don't know, you might try and run me down" in a totally civil voice, to "Well I don't know what the law is even though I'm using the colour thing as the whole justification for the stop"... Makes me think that actually he was just having an absolute bastard of a day in a bastard of a year and completely lost it.
The guy in the car is on this thread, isn’t he?!
Both sockets, could easily have been avoided. Police man loses because he has to behave impeccably. Car socket should lose due the indignation over something so trivial.
I think he was right to pull the car over, if your car had been cloned or you bike stolen and sprayed a different colour but the rest matched your description, you would want the police to act.
@Rich_s Aye ta. IANAL... I've just watched hundreds of those vids where the argument starts with the Police (mis) quoting why the potential scally should provide licence/insurance/mot... Worth remembering when it's mis quoted to you (us) but obv we'll just come over as a smart arse expecting the Police to know why they're stopping you and actually quoting the correct piece of legislation...
If you are in a car then they do have the right to ascertain your identity to make sure you have a license!
They do but that's a small subset of what you were asserting earlier.
@boblo - that is my understanding also, aside from:
It is widely recognised people may not carry this in the vehicle (it is often specifically advised against) and a 7 day producer will be issued. Again, AIUI, this does not override the requirement to produce when asked and in theory, you could be prosecuted for not doing so.
If you do not have your documents on you then you get a caution at the roadside for failing to provide and you're issued with a 'producer' to evidence the caution. If you subsequently produce valid documents at a station within the next seven days, this caution is dropped.
Has anyone found anything to support the driver's assertation about not having to inform the DVLA because the roof hasn't changed colour? Again, sorry if it's been posted and I missed it.
pondo
Full MemberHas anyone found anything to support the driver’s assertation about not having to inform the DVLA because the roof hasn’t changed colour?
The trouble with this is, the DVLA are inconsistent. But they have definitely ruled previously that you need to tell them if the car "predominantly" changes colour, with no obvious definition of what that means. However with Smart cars, they've ruled that the tridion- the structural shell- is the only colour that counts for registration, and that's basically the roof and the rear quarters, so that apparently is the closest thing to an official definition of what "predominantly" means. If you replace all of the painted panels that doesn't change the colour.
Supposedly that same logic was applied to some Polo "harlequin" cars, but not all- some people were told they had to be "multi" and so apparently were some factory harli cars, while others were registered with the colour of the roof/rear quarters/sills. But then, that might be a myth because so many harlequin vws aren't factory.
In both cases, it's basically the bits that can be unbolted and replaced that were discounted from the colour, while the bits that are inherent/structural and can't be easily swapped are what counted
Guidance issued by the DVLA on wraps says that if the entire car's colour is changed do they consider it a colour change. It doesn't specifically say that if 90% of the car is changed with a wrap that they DON'T consider it a change but it's implied IMO
"By covering the entire vehicle in a coloured adhesive/vinyl wrap, it is the DVLA’s view that the colour change should be recorded."
My motorbike is registered as "multi" because it's green and silver, though, even though it's 90% green. When I called them up to ask what it should be, they basically said "could be either in that case, we don't care", so I went with multi because that meant I could also fit different colour panels when I felt like it (it had a set of cheap crashable trackday plastics)
I don't think from the video that we know that only the roof is still the original colour? He says "look at the roof" but it doesn't follow that only the roof is still unchanged. I'm pretty curious to see the car now!
FWIW I'm pretty sure that what he told the officer was wrong. But equally the officer responds "Well I don't know that" rather than "no that's not the law" so it doesn't really change the situation either way.
(and tbh stopping a multi-coloured car because it's not all the colour the DVLA thinks it is, when some of it is that colour, gets a bit more dubious I reckon. The obvious explanation for that would be a colour change or partial colour change rather than false plates or whatever)
Has anyone found anything to support the driver’s assertation about not having to inform the DVLA because the roof hasn’t changed colour?
I’ve had a little look and can’t find anything that specific on the DVLA website - just that if you change the colour of the car you must update your V5.
A couple of wrapping websites - for what they’re worth - advise that if you wrap your car you should notify the DVLA, but that partial wrapping eg. signwriting does not need to be notified.
I would consider a white van with a fair amount of colourful signwriting as still a white van. Conversely, a black car wrapped/repainted yellow but with the black roof left alone, to my mind is now a yellow car, not a black one. Plenty of cars now come with the option of a different coloured roof. Common sense would suggest that it’s a yellow car with a black roof, rather than a black car with a yellow-everything-except-the-roof.
But a definitive answer would require either clarification by the DVLA or be ruled upon in a court.
Makes me think that actually he was just having an absolute bastard of a day in a bastard of a year and completely lost it.
Can empathise. Thank **** I only have machines and work management to deal with, I got out of dealing with mouth breathers years ago.
In all seriousnessit looks like the guy simply doesn't know how to deal with a smart arse and is just losing it. It's not professional, it deserves further attention but it doesn't make him a bad person. I'd probably have tazeres the gobshite and left him sitting in a pile of his own faeces long before that was resolved. Needless to say I'm not a people person.
Don’t think the driver did anything wrong at all, police totally out of order (as I’ve come to expect) and the amount of posts on here suggesting otherwise is ridiculous. It just shows how the police expect you to behave and if you don’t make their job really easy then they (unlawfully) take their anger out on somebody. I don’t think I’d have done anything different to the driver other than staying a bit calmer (which is difficult in the circumstances), and would be taking this as far as I could. Wrongful arrest for a start.
Don’t think the driver did anything wrong at all,
Wrong. He refused lawful requests from the police. he was antagonistic and rude.
Its not a wrongful arrest. the cop has that power to arrest or to detain someone while he sorts out what is what
You need a bit of a life lesson. Your idea of what a cop can and cannot do is a long way from the truth and you would be laughed out of any lawyers offivce if you tried to claim wrongful arrest for that.
yes the cop lost it and thats not good but the driver behaved appallingly and was lucky not to have his arrest continued, taken down to the station and charged with offenses.
Charged with what offenses exactly? Or just a random selection as a punishment for being unhelpful? "I've had a bad day, and you are rude and a bit of a smartarse. As such I am arresting you and you will be taken to the station and charged with TV License evasion, possession of Quaaludes with intent to supply and aggravated assault."
I wouldn’t have handled it like that. The driver’s lack of compliance totally threw him and he lost control there and then, resorting to threats of violence and tickets.
He’s not allowed to use force to merely to make someone comply. That’s contrary to S3 Humans Rights Act - freedom from torture & inhumane treatment.
Use of force is governed by numerous bits of legislation:
Common Law (usually defending someone, himself or property)
S117 PACE
S3 Criminal Law Act
Are the principle sources, though other acts have powers attached too (immigration act, terrorism act etc.)
It’s sledgehammer & walnut here & completely unnecessary.
He is allowed to stop someone driving a motor vehicle on a road and S163 RTA 1988 requires the driver to stop when requested by a Police Officer in uniform.
S164 then requires a driver to produce his docs when requested if the constabulary suspects an offence (not limited to docs offence - any Road Traffic offence). The 7 day thing is virtually unused these days as IT has improved to the point that you can usually bottom any enquiry very quickly at the roadside.
However, that needs the cooperation of the driver. If the driver doesn’t cooperate by giving enough information to carry out those roadside checks then they have clearly committed an offence of failing to produce his docs (not police obstruction). To explain, the offence for which you would be reported would be failing to produce when requested (I.e. the initial roadside request). Also, without evidence of any docs you would be reported for those offences too. For example, you’d be reported for failing to produce and for having no insurance, licence, MOT, VEL etc.
S24 of PACE gives the power of arrest so therefore S117 of PACE means the cop may use reasonable force to the officer, if necessary to exercise this power.
I have a couple of colleagues who speak to every errant driver like scum... it’s embarrassing & requires constant smoothing over. I’ve sort of got to the stage where I think to my colleagues “you’re on your ****ing own here chum”, but total embarrassment gets the better of me and I end up smoothing things over.
Police aren’t perfect - never have been & never will be - they’re human and cock up just like humans. However, they’re also meant to set an example & that starts with how you actually speak to someone. There is nothing more satisfying than playing back the body worn video in court and you’re totally reasonable, polite & even friendly and you’re met with someone being an arms chair lawyer or simply obnoxious.
Just as a Cop should know the law and the powers under which he is operating, it is incumbent upon every driver to know the law too. So look at the wording of S163 carefully:
“A person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform”
Note that it does not say “a constable in uniform may stop any mechanically propelled vehicle...”
The wording is important because it places the responsibility on the driver to do what the RTA says... this is pedantic but this is the way the law is. It is the drivers responsibility to follow the rules and if they don’t it is they who break the law.
Sorry for the lengthy post... it’s late & ive just cracked open my new bottle of Woodford Reserve...
Is the man in the car acting entitled?
Yes.
He IS entitled to his civil liberties and a police officer saying he's going to "smash his window in" and give him a "ticket for something" is horrible.
the correct answer to the police when being stopped is always ” yes sir” then the interactions go smoothly.
My word, this is terrible. You can be polite and stand up for your rights.
Thank you Mildred
Hugo - its intended to mean the correct approach not literally
Arguing with cops never ends well. Being polite and civil has got me off several fines
Loads of these type of interactions on YouTube. Both sides are not right and could be better.
If I'm stopped I always immediately get out of the car which from experience the police don't like either but I'd rather converse at the side of the road face to face. I'm always polite but I question everything and would expect the police officer to know the law inside out and be able to explain it in layman's terms.
Police are not the enemy of the general public but neither is the general public the enemy of the police.
Thanks for the explanation @mildred. I was wondering if I could get your take on what 'any reason' actually means. I see it written various places that an officer can stop a car for any reason but does that mean literally any reason, any legitimate reason, or no reason?
It's pedantic but I think when it comes to the law you have to be pedantic. If any reason actually means literally any reason or no reason then how do you stop people getting pulled over for driving while black?
If any reason means any legitimate reason then does that mean that there has to be something suspicious about either the vehicle or the driving in order to be allowed to pull a car over?
If a car is pulled over because the officer doesn't understand the rules properly does that mean that the officer has stopped a car without a legitimate reason and if so what happens then?
Sorry for all the pedantic questions but vehicle stops seem like a bit of a minefield for all involved.
If a car is pulled over because the officer doesn’t understand the rules properly does that mean that the officer has stopped a car without a legitimate reason and if so what happens then?
May I suggest that that question's a bit loaded? He DID stop the car for a legitimate reason (unless he could see the roof of the car before he made the stop) - the driver made a claim about the colour that, at the very least, seems not to be as clear-cut as he portrayed it.
I'd still love to see the start of the encounter.
Sorry for all the pedantic questions but vehicle stops seem like a bit of a minefield for all involved.
Officer stops you, you wind your window down and answer his questions, no-one loses, minefield avoided and everyone gets on their way quicker and happier.
And that's fine so long as you trust the police. Many people don't.
The problem with winding your window down is that the officer can then say, 'I smell marijuana.' If you keep your window wound up he can't.
Not everyone has had the same experiences with the police that you have had so I think you should try to see things from others point of view.
Here’s how I’ve always understood it.
Police can stop any vehicle for the purpose of checking that the driver has an appropriate license and insurance.
The practicality of this is that they find out who’s driving the vehicle, because you can’t not tell them - either verbally or by showing your licence - who you are.
They don’t have to have done anything wrong for the police to be allowed to do that. Perhaps this is where the concept of ‘they don’t need a reason’ has come from?
On top of that you have all the scenarios where there might be an additional reason why the police might stop a car - a driver who sees the police and quickly goes a different direction, a car slowly driving round an industrial estate in the early hours, a vehicle being driven at 20mph on an empty 40mph road, or a car that’s colour doesn’t match the DVLA record for its registration.
Apart from potentially the last one, none of those things are against the law, but are all legitimate reasons why the police might want to see who is in that vehicle - respectively, why have they tried to avoid us?, are they scouting this place out to break in?, are they drunk, lost, or half blind and can’t see properly?. Have they broken any laws - there’s every chance they haven’t. Is it worth checking what’s going on - absolutely.
A few nights ago I stopped a pick up towing a trailer with a quad bike on it. That’s not an offence. But we’ve had a number of quad bikes stolen from farms/estates in our area this year, so I wanted to check this one wasn’t. Explained to the driver why I had stopped him, checked the pick up and his licence, he’s the DVLA keeper, his vehicle is registered to a farm, and that’s in the direction he was going, so everything is fine. Took a few minutes. He’s not done anything wrong, but I don’t think I’m intruding in his human rights by stopping him, it’s just normal policing.
Officer stops you, you wind your window down and answer his questions
Presumably his questions that pertain to the stop? S163/S164 up there ^ ie identifying yourself and providing the means to verify MOT/license/VED/ownership online. Anything else presumbly comes under your right to not share information with random inquisitive Police?
S24 of PACE gives the power of arrest so therefore S117 of PACE means the cop may use reasonable force to the officer, if necessary to exercise this power.
Does this mean the Police can use reasonable force to obtain the S164 info during a routine traffic stop? I.e. you/they can justify smashing a window in if a driver of a stopped and turned off car doesn't want to get out to 'fall down the stairs in the back of the Range Rover' (not literally <sigh>)?
Genuinely curious.
And that’s fine so long as you trust the police. Many people don’t.
The problem with winding your window down is that the officer can then say, ‘I smell marijuana.’ If you keep your window wound up he can’t.
Not everyone has had the same experiences with the police that you have had so I think you should try to see things from others point of view.
I fully accept that, without in any way agreeing that that is the case in this instance. I note also that the driver has witheld his name but also that Dorset police have not received a complaint from him about it, despite the driver having gone to the media about his treatment. Make of that what you will.
The driver has a right to be a dork, but in so doing, it will likely have an effect on the putcome of the stop. In this case, it was a really bad outcome and the policeman was a dork too, maybe the driver's been a righteous uncooperative knobjockey before and he's come away with a video he can post to his Tiktok buddies about stickin it to da man. But I would be willing to bet that if he HAD wound the window down and said "good evening officer, how can I help?", the conversation would probably not subsequently contained the phrase "you're getting a ticket for something". What do you think?
Genuinely curious.
No you're not.
Police can stop any vehicle for the purpose of checking that the driver has an appropriate license and insurance.
So from that I understand that an officer can pull over a vehicle even if there is nothing suspicious.
My concern here is that gives the police a great deal of leeway to pull people over for driving while black.
I always assumed that there had to be some reason for suspicion before pulling someone over so that the occupant couldn't then claim they were being pulled over because they were a POC.
What do you think?
We don't know.
speculation
/ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/
noun
The forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
"there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit"
pondo
Full Member
Genuinely curious.No you’re not.
@pondo I know it's panto season or as much as Covid-19 allows but, oh yes I am. I'll let you know when I'm not ta. 👍
We don’t know.
That's why I asked "what do you think".
One lesson I have learnt is a little civility goes a long way.
Who are you and what have you done with tj ??
🙂
pondo
Full Member
We don’t know.That’s why I asked “what do you think”.
See previous answer... 😝
It could be the Copper would have dealt with him charmingly, wished him and his camels, well and buggered off to Dunkin for supplies. Could be he called up the SPG and knocked seven bells out of him for wearing a loud shirt in a built up area (© Not the Nine O'clock News) or could be they settled down for a bit of mutual pleasuring. Or mebbies something else.
Who knows?
But I would be willing to bet that if he HAD wound the window down and said “good evening officer, how can I help?”, the conversation would probably not subsequently contained the phrase “you’re getting a ticket for something”. What do you think?
It doesn't really matter what I think, my experiences are completely different to this guy's.
Perhaps he has been stopped several times for the same reason and each time it has turned out he is right and the officer is wrong. One of the times when he wound down his window the officer said, 'I smell marijuana.' so this time he doesn't even want to wind his window down.
I don't want to get bogged down in the details of this case because we don't have all the information so speculation is kind of pointless.
What I'm interested in is what does 'any reason' mean. It sounds like it means literally any reason rather than any legitimate reason.
The danger with literally any reason is that it means if the police want to harass you for whatever reason, whether because you are a POC, you belong to a particular political party, or because you have bikes on the back and this particular officer really ****ing hates cyclists you have have no comeback.
Once you wind down your window they can say 'I smell marijuana.' and then they can turn over your car until they find something they can fine or arrest you for. Best case scenario is that they can't find anything and you end up on the side of the road with the entire contents of your car are in a ditch after the 'search'.
I think in this day and age, particularly with this party in government, 'any reason' meaning literally any reason is very dangerous.
Ok - well, I'll leave you all to it.
Some nonsense being talked here for sure.
First words from the guys mouth are "please dont touch my car" He is stressed but that sounds fairly polite to me.
Thirty seconds in the window is down and hes trying to stop a threatening baton wielding copper from going over the top. Yet he still doesnt get himself wound up or even swear.
At 55 secs the cop despite talking through a wound down window tells him to wind his window down, a clear sign of frustration.
Guy in car is a bit full of himself but he isnt the one showing himself up here.
Strikes me as the police guy was stood in the cold and wet, getting frustrated because he quickly realised there wasnt any real reason for the stop and it only got worse when the guy in the JAG was confident and not intimated.
He answers all the coppers questions, tells him he doesnt have his licence on him etc.
Im guessing before the JAG has stopped the copper knows owner info, insurance valid, mot valid etc..
So from that I understand that an officer can pull over a vehicle even if there is nothing suspicious.
Yes, that’s the case.
My concern here is that gives the police a great deal of leeway to pull people over for driving while black.
I wouldn’t say leeway as that almost suggests you can stretch the legislation to cover it, but I know what you’re getting at. It is lawful for the police to stop a vehicle and obtain the drivers details without the driver having done anything illegal or even suspicious. Obviously it is not lawful to stop them simply because they are black.
I always assumed that there had to be some reason for suspicion before pulling someone over so that the occupant couldn’t then claim they were being pulled over because they were a POC.
Not from a legal perspective. If I stop someone I’ll explain to them from the outset why I’ve done so. That’s half the problem, when a police officer can’t effectively explain what they’re doing, and if necessary their powers. I think an explanation of what you’re doing and why is the least someone deserves. It’s what I’d expect.
Does this mean the Police can use reasonable force to obtain the S164 info during a routine traffic stop? I.e. you/they can justify smashing a window in if a driver of a stopped and turned off car doesn’t want to get out to ‘fall down the stairs in the back of the Range Rover’ (not literally <sigh>)?
Genuinely curious.
Again, you have to look at the wording of the legislation (all online & in the public domain by the way). They’re not using force to obtain information - that would be torture. Rather, the person who fails to provide the information contrary to S164 of RTA commits an offence for which they can be arrested (this is under S24 of PACE). This is not to say they will be arrested, but they can be. A constable may use such force as is necessary in the circumstances to make that arrest.
So from that I understand that an officer can pull over a vehicle even if there is nothing suspicious.
My concern here is that gives the police a great deal of leeway to pull people over for driving while black.
100% correct that a driver can be stopped even if there is nothing suspicious. The colour of someone’s skin has absolutely no bearing on this requirement to stop. As Great Aoe has alluded to earlier, it will be generally to ensure someone is lawfully driving. That is the whole purpose of the legislation. Simply put, it’s the law that you stop and provide the details outlined in S164. This not stop & search, it’s not stop & account, it’s basic traffic policing that any constable in uniform can do.
That said, practically speaking there will always be some reason fir the cop to use their power. In a very clumsy & combative way the cop in the video mentions the colour of the car. Absolutely would I stop a car that’s not the colour it’s registered as. The
Number of cars driving around on false plates is staggering, so why wouldn’t I stop and ask some basic questions? Again, it wouldn’t have gone like that stop did 😩
So glad that people who properly know what they are talking about have got on this thread.
If you are in a car then they do have the right to ascertain your identity to make sure you have a license!
Last time I checked glass was see through and a window could be opened enough to push some documents through for them to be checked. But apparently the cop felt the need to smash the blokes window in order to check his identity. Can you at least admit the copper although technically within his rights to stop him, his actions were way over the top.
MoreCashThanDash
Full Member
So glad that people who properly know what they are talking about have got on this thread.
Agreed. But careful what you post, they'll be round later... 😝
@mildred Ta. So if I get stopped under S163 and then asked to verify under S164, am I under any obligation to share any other information that may be asked for during the S164 Traffic Stop? I.e. am I obligated to in a mandatory sense?
Thanks for your help. 👍
Agreed. But careful what you post, they’ll be round later… 😝
Only for a brew.
Only for a brew.
Tasering is thirsty work.
I bloody love the tasering, me!
It is. I really need it back, questions are being asked and I can only fob them off for so long. Surely your kids have learnt by now?
Surely your kids have learnt by now?
Yes...but I have many neighbours.
Not as far as I know.
However, it doesn’t preclude an officer from asking questions. Sometimes it’s just a matter of chewing the fat whilst you perform a fairly mundane part of the job, but sometimes it’s because something might make an officer suspect there’s another offence and they’re trying to scratch a little deeper. This might result in further action or it might result in the cop being satisfied that everything is legit.
As loads of people have already said, it’s all about how you speak to someone.
Fair enough. Community policing at its best.
@mildred Perfect, ta. That was my understanding too.
However, questions, requests etc may be couched in terms that appear to be instructions/mandatory.
For example, I had a car vs bicycle incident last year and the attending wanted to breath test me (the cyclist) in the back of an ambulance. The request was phrased in a way that made it appear mandatory. I did ask the officer if I was obligated who then started waffling... I told him I'd take a breath test, not because he'd pretended I had to, but because I wanted it ruled out as a potential cause from an insurance perspective. After blowing negative (I hadn't drunk alcohol for ~15 years) he then carried on being a nob so I had the Paramedic ask him to leave on the basis I was in no fit state to respond in sensible manner.
You're right, it was how he spoke to me as well as what he actually said. Luckily (?) I was still able to recognise that despite being 'in a bit of a mess'.
Riding a pedal cycle whilst drunk or unfit through drink or drugs (words to that effect) is an offence but under the RTA 1988 the requirement to provide a sample can only be made to someone driving a motor vehicle.
I agree with you on this one that it was probably a good thing to do just to undermine any future defence argument that you may have been drunk and swerved into the path of the vehicle. Depending on the offence, a defence solicitor or lawyer only has to introduce a reasonable doubt. So if that reasonable doubt is the absence of evidence that you weren’t drunk then a defence will happily grab that one. Reasonable doubts can be amazing... they can appear to have so little to do with whether a person has actually committed an offence, that you walk out of court wondering what just happened. That’s a whole different thread right there..!
From the point of view of insurance companies, I think their burden of proof is along the lines of being “on the balance of probabilities”. And allows for shared responsibility (and can ultimately affect the amount you get paid out in compensation).
No the police man is 100% in the wrong, I can 100% bet being a white male I would not have had that experience with that policeman.
TL DR but not really true.
1) I didn't even notice what ethnicity the abused driver is
2) Profiling and shit attitude to law abiding citizens isn't confined to minorities
It does however explain the attitude of the driver.. if they are being constantly stopped then "not this again" is probably a justified reaction.
It is lawful for the police to stop a vehicle and obtain the drivers details without the driver having done anything illegal or even suspicious. Obviously it is not lawful to stop them simply because they are black.
If that is indeed true, surely you can see the potential for that code to be abused by people with (intentional or unintentional) biases against POC / other minorities / anyone. I'll spell it out - a police officer could choose to stop a black person someone because they don't like black people, or thought black people were more likely to commit crime. And when questioned about why they chose to stop that person, they could simply shrug and say 'no reason, your honour'?
That seems problematic.
I still don't really get what a "lawful request" is supposed to mean. Keeps getting trotted out as if that's an argument all by itself.
All the laws I can find require drivers to stop when requested by police. I can't find any requirements beyond that.
Looking at the video again, and the window is slightly open to begin with. They can certainly easily talk through it.
Given the pandemic, I might not want to have my window all the way down for people to talk through it, either.
Absolutely would I stop a car that’s not the colour it’s registered as
Genuine question, how would this even register with a policeman? I'm aware of the number plate being used to get the vehicle details, but is the ANPR system scanning every car the policemen passes telling them what colour it's registered under and if the policeman gets a possible mis-registered car, they then pull the car over???
but is the ANPR system scanning every car the policemen passes telling them what colour it’s registered under and if the policeman gets a possible mis-registered car, they then pull the car over???
Yes & No
Yes ANPR will scan pretty much every vehicle as it passes (not every officer has access to this, by the way) but no it will not automatically spring up details of every car. An officer has to either request the details by the computer or ask on the radio, this is how they would find out all of the registered detail. They have to have a genuine policing purpose for this request, but this does cover a very broad range of scenarios or purposes.
In my experience for me to do this there would have to be something else. For example, a poorly maintained or ropey looking car would prompt me to look a bit further and take more notice. Especially if that car was being driven around an affluent area. Likewise, a shiny new premium manufactured car being driven around a poor area would also draw attention. Clearly I’m not making any inference, I’m just saying it warrants a closer look, which usually means running it through the computer.
If I then see any sort of discrepancy I’ll request it to stop. There’s generally a totally innocent explanation but unless I stop it... how will I know?
Can I ask, how is it so many of you seem able to determine a drivers ethnicity from behind and in any case, in the dark? I asked this on the last thread it came up on and never got an answer, maybe this time I'll get lucky?
is the ANPR system scanning every car the policemen passes telling them what colour it’s registered under and if the policeman gets a possible mis-registered car, they then pull the car over???
As I understand it, yes.
What I’m interested in is what does ‘any reason’ mean. It sounds like it means literally any reason rather than any legitimate reason.
I suppose arguably "I wanted to check his documentation" could be a reason?
The danger with literally any reason is that it means if the police want to harass you for whatever reason, whether because you are a POC, you belong to a particular political party, or because you have bikes on the back and this particular officer really **** hates cyclists you have have no comeback.
Worse, I'm sure I read somewhere that routine stops that don't turn up anything aren't recorded? So if PC Bastard spends his evenings randomly stopping brown people there's no audit trail for it. That's something that surely needs to change, if the same driver is being stopped on a weekly basis then either they're doing something dodgy or being victimised and either way that should merit futher investigation.
So if I get stopped under S163 and then asked to verify under S164, am I under any obligation to share any other information that may be asked for during the S164 Traffic Stop? I.e. am I obligated to in a mandatory sense?
That's the rub, isn't it. On a random "any reason" stop you're obliged to provide your identification and motoring documents on demand and nothing else. However, exercising your rights to say "mind your own bloody business" may well give them reasonable suspicion that you have something to hide so you'll be invited to step into their car whilst they do a Stop and Search.
Can I ask, how is it so many of you seem able to determine a drivers ethnicity from behind and in any case, in the dark? I asked this on the last thread it came up on and never got an answer, maybe this time I’ll get lucky?
I’m sort of looking for the trick question here, or the joke... either way I’ll bite.
I can’t tell who is driving in those circumstances, especially with most cars now being fitted with privacy glass.
That’s the rub, isn’t it. On a random “any reason” stop you’re obliged to provide your identification and motoring documents on demand and nothing else. However, exercising your rights to say “mind your own bloody business” may well give them reasonable suspicion that you have something to hide so you’ll be invited to step into their car whilst they do a Stop and Search.
But if they were to find something illegal on the subsequent search it wouldn't necessarily follow that a court would agree with them that the basis for that search had been lawful. Of course that doesn't mean you haven't had a load of trouble and possibly cost in the process - but then you could just give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question - bearing in mind that its in everyone's interest for the police to tackle crime, and get on with their day if people they are talking to are law abiding.
Perhaps he has been stopped several times for the same reason and each time it has turned out he is right and the officer is wrong. One of the times when he wound down his window the officer said, ‘I smell marijuana.’ so this time he doesn’t even want to wind his window down.
So many years ago I was cooking and realised I didn't have some ingredient.
I chucked on a top (just happened to be a hoody) and went to the local shop. Left my kid and OH in the house and didn't even say goodbye as it was a 2 min walk each way
I stood in the crowded queue (pre covid remember) with a Police Sergeant behind me queued up to buy something...
I paid and left the shop and got approached by an officer... who demanded he search me.
I asked why... and he said "I can smell drugs on you" ... "I was a bit taken aback and said "your sergeant was just in the shop behind me and didn't smell anything so why don't we wait for him".
He started getting very frisky and physical ... so I asked him for his badge number filled out on 5090 along with the reason for the stop and search.
He continued pushing me about until his Sergeant came out at which point I asked him to intervene.
"Not my problem" (or something like that)
Once again I requested a 5090, reason and the officers badge number and he refused.
Once again I appealed to the sergeant ... no action
I eventually got one filled out with "Smells of drugs" as the reason.
I got searched and they found exactly one can of tomatoes and change from a pound and some fluff in my pockets....
I rather hope the sergeant gave him a dressing down after... and I rather suspect the reason was "wearing a hoody".
I can’t tell who is driving in those circumstances, especially with most cars now being fitted with privacy glass.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507094621.htm
The largest-ever study of alleged racial profiling during traffic stops has found that blacks, who are pulled over more frequently than whites by day, are much less likely to be stopped after sunset, when "a veil of darkness" masks their race.
Yes it's in America, but I find it a bit concerning how whenever there is mention of the potential for conscious or unconscious bias against certain groups by the police it's always deny deny deny. I imagined you would have had training to cover that.
I’m sort of looking for the trick question here, or the joke… either way I’ll bite.
Assuming he meant in the video.
More TL:DR but has no-one mentioned the catheter yet?
but has no-one mentioned the catheter yet?
Was going to... but thought that would just be taking the piss.
Was going to… but thought that would just be taking the piss.
Sorry I meant cannula
it wouldn’t necessarily follow that a court would agree with them that the basis for that search had been lawful.
True, though is "acting suspiciously" not reasonable cause? Being a gobshite, sure, that's shaky ground. But if you're refusing to answer simple questions like "where are you off to tonight?" (even though you're not obliged to do so) could that not justify further investigation?
I dunno, it's a difficult one. The police have a position of power over you and it's difficult to gauge whether an individual is likely to give you a hard time just because they can so perhaps it's better just to hold your tongue and take TJ's belt-mounted breathalyser test.
Hell, in their position I'd probably do it, I'm a firm believer in Attitude Tax. If I've got five days to do a project and you're nice to me I'll try and get it back the same day, if you're a complete shit about it then you can bet your arse it'll take four days 23 hours.
Once again I requested a 5090, reason and the officers badge number and he refused.
"Bye, then."
Just a note to any police officers on this thread. If you ever stop me do not perform a stop and search as you’ll have to get clearance for the overtime. My car is a mobile playpen for the kids/extra storage space for crap that won’t fit under the stairs, in a cupboard or the shed.
Hell, in their position I’d probably do it, I’m a firm believer in Attitude Tax. If I’ve got five days to do a project and you’re nice to me I’ll try and get it back the same day, if you’re a complete shit about it then you can bet your arse it’ll take four days 23 hours.
I'm sure we must have worked on the same projects at some stage... 🙃 I always try and be nice, save the bolshiness for when (if) it's needed.
Cougar
“Bye, then.”
Yep true and I guess I did as he eventually wrote me a 5090
You also have to weigh up at which point they just claim you hit them.
TBH when it started I was pretty confident the Sergeant I'd just queued with would see sense.
I'd passed the time of day with the shopkeeper (normal stuff) and we obviously knew each other etc.
I mean the inane questions ....
"What are you doing here"
"Buying a can of tomatoes" (holding up can in non threatening way)
"Show me ID"
"I left it at home, I just popped out to buy a can of tomatoes"
You'd think having obviously paid (in front of the sergeant) and having nothing but the can and change from a pound (not even my keys as I'd left the door on the latch) this would seem a plausible story!!!