MILLIONAIRE Tory Cabinet minister refers to police as " plebs " - Police fabricate evidence

[TW]Fox;23390738 said:
I suspect its perhaps likely it was disregarded for being wrong, not becuase you were not a lawyer :p
Click to expand...

Well it wasn't wrong.

If I must, in my case I was nabbed by police officer's using a speed gun who...

* Were hiding down a slope and behind a wall (ACPO guidelines state officers must be in clear sight when performing operations like this).

* Took their reading from several hundred meters (ACPO guidelines recommend a much shorter distance to scan from, I tried to provide evidence from a BBC investigation that showed speed guns become less and less reliable at longer ranges and this was deemed inadmissible and I was told I had to produce the actual expert the BBC did - like I have the money)

There were more rules they broke but I can't remember now because it was years ago.
 
estebanrey said:
I did, but not being a lawyer or a legal expert most of what I said was disregarded or deemed inadmissible in court.

Anyway don't want to derail the thread with my case.
Click to expand...

For the reasons I outlined above, you were speeding and only exceptional circumstances are acceptable.

Blaming the police doesn't normally cut it.
 
estebanrey said:
Well it wasn't wrong.

If I must, in my case I was nabbed by police officer's using a speed gun who...

* Were hiding down a slope and behind a wall (ACPO guidelines state officers must be in clear sight when performing operations like this).

* Took their reading from several hundred meters (ACPO guidelines recommend a much shorter distance to scan from, I tried to provide evidence from a BBC investigation that showed speed guns become less and less reliable at longer ranges and this was deemed inadmissible and I was told I had to produce the actual expert the BBC did - like I have the money)

There were more rules they broke but I can't remember now because it was years ago.
Click to expand...

You were clocked speeding though? Did they show you the machine?

What's to stop everyone saying the copper was hiding in a bin lid, in cammo? Or in a bush?

Who is going to comply with the law then?

Irrespective, bush or not, had you been following the legal speed limit you wouldn't have found yourself so bitter at your judicial experience.
 
Biohazard said:
For the reasons I outlined above, you were speeding and only exceptional circumstances are acceptable.

Blaming the police doesn't normally cut it.
Click to expand...

You are the King of Strawmen. Where did I blame the police?

I'm just giving you an account of my experience. Where the policeman lied was when he took the stand and claimed I had told him "Sorry mate I thought it was 40 down here" when I never said such a thing.

I've watched enough crime shows to know you STFU when stopped by a police officer and that's pretty much what I did.

I can't tell you how angry I was when that officer stood up and said that, mainly because before that, like you, I thought of them as upstanding members of the community trying to do a tough job honestly.

Luckily, I managed to stop myself shouting "objection your honour" :p

But if your position is it is OK for police officers to lie and break guidelines just so long as they get the conviction then I'll respectfully disagree with that position.
 
[TW]Fox;23390784 said:
You cited guidelines as absolute and wondered why it didn't work?
Click to expand...

Well it seems to work for that Loophole Guy who can get celebrities of all manner of offences based on police not following the correct procedure (Nick Leeson?!?!?). And don't forget that procedure is there in the first place to minimize false readings and making false arrests.

I'm telling this story to show my experience of the police lying in court and no more, why people are making judgements about my case in general I don't know.
 
Freddie1980 said:
I was going to say Ed Millband has now made himself look like a fool but then I quickly realised he couldn't be anymore foolish then if he turned up for PMQ's in a Coco the clown the outfit riding a unicycle.
Click to expand...

+1 on this! PMQ's are going to be unmissable tomorrow!

Ed Millband needs to offer a full apology tomorrow, but will he ****!
 
Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Met's commissioner, said he stood by the officers who claimed Mitchell called them plebs. Speaking on LBC the commissioner said: "I don't really think from what I've heard up to now that it's really affected the original account of the officers at the scene … There's nothing I've seen in this fresh information that causes me to doubt that original account."
Click to expand...

Unbelievable.

Whilst it is still 'possible' (but unlikely if you watch the footage) that Mitchell said what they claimed, it is clear that there was not a 'crowd of shocked onlookers' at the gates which the log claimed. That alone should at least cast doubt on the story.

To say there is "nothing" to suggest the original report was inaccurate is just flabbergasting.
 
estebanrey said:
Unbelievable.

Whilst it is still 'possible' (but unlikely if you watch the footage) that Mitchell said what they claimed, it is clear that there was not a 'crowd of shocked onlookers' at the gates which the log claimed. That alone should at least cast doubt on the story.

To say there is "nothing" to suggest the original report was inaccurate is just flabbergasting.
Click to expand...

AFAIK the 'crowd of shocked onlookers' at the gates thing come from the police officer who wasn't there... the one who wrote the e-mail to his MP meaning this statement isn't necessarily untrue:

I don't really think from what I've heard up to now that it's really affected the original account of the officers at the scene
Click to expand...

the cheeky scroat who wrote the e-mail certainly needs a few unplesant meetings without coffee
 
estebanrey said:
You are the King of Strawmen. Where did I blame the police?
Click to expand...

For apparently not following guidlines, even if it was the case... you still admitted to speeding I presume?

Don't see what the issue is.

estebanrey said:
I'm just giving you an account of my experience. Where the policeman lied was when he took the stand and claimed I had told him "Sorry mate I thought it was 40 down here" when I never said such a thing.

I've watched enough crime shows to know you STFU when stopped by a police officer and that's pretty much what I did.

I can't tell you how angry I was when that officer stood up and said that, mainly because before that, like you, I thought of them as upstanding members of the community trying to do a tough job honestly.

Luckily, I managed to stop myself shouting "objection your honour" :p

But if your position is it is OK for police officers to lie and break guidelines just so long as they get the conviction then I'll respectfully disagree with that position.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he was mistaken, in any event I doubt your conviction was hinged singularly upon his incorrect comment.

Your conviction would have taken place in any likely event, given the fact you were speeding.
 
I don't understand why the Toryboi's are calling for Andrew Mitchell to be given a top job in government? He still swore at police (he's admitted this), something which would get you or I arrested.
 
Biohazard said:
For apparently not following guidlines, even if it was the case... you still admitted to speeding I presume?
Click to expand...

Um no I didn't, hence why I was in court.

Perhaps he was mistaken, in any event I doubt your conviction was hinged singularly upon his incorrect comment.
Click to expand...

And there you prove my point. Thank you.

Despite me being the only eye witness you have in my story, you are choosing to disbelieve my claim that the officer lied and have even started making excuses.

This was my point from the start, people are far more willing to believe a police officer's version of events than the public's. This is dangerous and gives the police almost judge and jury powers.

But he wasn't 'mistaken', you can mishear something or quote it out of context but you can't just pull I sentence out of thin air and claim it was said when in fact I said nothing past my name.

Biohazard said:
Your conviction would have taken place in any likely event, given the fact you were speeding.
Click to expand...

How do you know this, do you have the ability to time travel?

But again, I never mentioned this story of mine so you could go over it, play internet magistrate and judge me. Whether I was speeding or not, what the police did on the day they stopped me or what they stopped me for is irrelevant to this thread.

What was relevant to this story was my experience of a copper deliberately lying in a court against to aid their case.
 
I'm rather fond of the word "pleb". Thought he'd inspired a mini revival of its vernacular usage.

Sadly not :(

Labour rabble rousers ominously quiet now that their new chance at a class war has been denied them.
 
scorza said:
I don't understand why the Toryboi's are calling for Andrew Mitchell to be given a top job in government? He still swore at police (he's admitted this), something which would get you or I arrested.
Click to expand...

If you swear at a police officer you get arrested? Is that right?
 
I believe you can be arrested for a public order offence, with the fact the swearing being directed at the police officer irrelevant (I hope).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom