Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Griff9of13

Our wonderful boys in blue (again)

12 posts in this topic

I saw this on BBC North West Tonight yesterday evening and was, quite frankly shocked. I have never had an 'anti police' attitude, but this and other things in recent years (Plebgate, Tomlinson etc) have made me think. Regardless of what you think of the anti-fracking cause this looks pretty bad and I would hate to find myself in a similar position. 

 

Anti-fracking protester to sue police over 'trumped-up' drink arrest caught on video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That copper wants sacking and his superior officer wants to be the subject of an enquiry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The next series of Police, Camera, Action is being re-launched as You've Been Framed, sadly the late Jeremy Beadle is not available to present this but Andrew Mitchell  has confirmed that he would definitely be interested in working on this project....even if it does feature a load of Plebs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That copper wants sacking and his superior officer wants to be the subject of an enquiry.

 

The worrying thing is that he is a senior officer; he is an inspector not, as the MEN incorrectly states, a sargent. He really should know better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing devils advocate, the officer had reason to believe he had been drinking and driven to the event so he's entitled to ask for a breath test isn't he?

Yes he misheard the word tea and thought he said 2 but even so....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing devils advocate, the officer had reason to believe he had been drinking and driven to the event so he's entitled to ask for a breath test isn't he?

Yes he misheard the word tea and thought he said 2 but even so....

 

 

No reason whatsoever. Even if the bloke had drunk two pints, he might have drunk them at the event and the police could not prove otherwise.

 

Therefore, as he was not driving when questioned, and had not attempted to drive, he could not have been guilty of any drink-driving crime.

 

Plenty of people drive to a particular pub or town for a night out, leave their car there and collect it the next day. I've done it dozens of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing devils advocate, the officer had reason to believe he had been drinking and driven to the event so he's entitled to ask for a breath test isn't he?

Yes he misheard the word tea and thought he said 2 but even so....

Drinking two pints is not a crime and I am pretty sure that they need to have clear evidence that you were driving under the influence to have any chance of a conviction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drinking two pints is not a crime and I am pretty sure that they need to have clear evidence that you were driving under the influence to have any chance of a conviction. 

 

I could be wrong, but i don't think you actually have to drive the car. The term is (or was) something like "being in charge of the vehicle". I think this means that you have opened the door and got in it. It might even cover putting the key in the lock and falling down drunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but i don't think you actually have to drive the car. The term is (or was) something like "being in charge of the vehicle". I think this means that you have opened the door and got in it. It might even cover putting the key in the lock and falling down drunk.

Fair enough, but standing on a public pavement out of sight of his car is perhaps pushing it a step too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That first plod needs to prosecuted for wasting police time (wasting the time of the other two coppers) and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Oh and why did he have red covers over his number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and why did he have red covers over his number?

Probably for ID in a public order situation,  ID him as a commander/team leader.

 

They seemed to be on first name terms, wonder what the previous is?  But to carry on when on camera?  Just dumb.  No wonder some police don't like the idea of cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017