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

Biohazard · 19 Dec 2012 at 22:18

estebanrey said:
Maybe in 1950 that would have be true. Today we have CCTV, finger printing, DNA, speed guns (when used properly of course ) etc etc etc.

There is simply no reason to rely on police officer's testimony's anymore and I don't see why they should be given anymore weight than any other eye witness.

You can't be serious so I'll leave you alone to think about it.

There is every reason to rely on the evidence of an Officer of the Crown. The weight comes from the rights and responsibilities of a Commission for acting on behalf of the State.

deadite66 · 19 Dec 2012 at 22:21

Andy90 said:
The CCTV only proves that there wasn't anyone beyond the small gate. What was to the left of the image at the main gate clearly hasn't been released.
.

Not just that, it also disproves that he was shouting enough to shock those non existent members of the public at those gates.

Biohazard · 19 Dec 2012 at 22:22

I think the CCTV is inconclusive, and in fact I'm pretty sure Downing Street itself said that a while ago. The police statements don't look to be entirely accurate either, although we clearly aren't at the bottom of this yet.

Gaygle · 19 Dec 2012 at 22:38

estebanrey said:
Well the Police's ability to stop and search anyone on a whim means even by not committing crime

Haha are you joking me? Do you realise in some forces stop and search figures have gone through the floor because officers have had enough of being branded racist/bullies who have nothing better to do, that they have stopped doing S1's pretty much altogether? To the point where chief officers have had to send out orders asking for more stop and searches to be done and that officers will be supported as long as they abide by the (very strict) guidelines.

[TW]Fox · 19 Dec 2012 at 22:41

Andy90 said:
The CCTV only proves that there wasn't anyone beyond the small gate. What was to the left of the image at the main gate clearly hasn't been released.

Yes it has? It was shown on the C4 programme the other night.

Gaygle · 19 Dec 2012 at 22:43

estebanrey said:
Maybe in 1950 that would have be true. Today we have CCTV, finger printing, DNA, speed guns (when used properly of course ) etc etc etc.

There is simply no reason to rely on police officer's testimony's anymore and I don't see why they should be given anymore weight than any other eye witness.

Well you'll be pleased to hear that a Police officers testimony is carries nowhere near as much weight as i hear it used to. You seem to forget that on a daily basis, police officers deal with liars. It makes your head hurt sometimes how someone can refute or argue against what you have seen with your own two eyes, but darn it people will try.

Andy90 · 19 Dec 2012 at 22:53

[TW]Fox;23397610 said:
Yes it has? It was shown on the C4 programme the other night.

I stand corrected then. The clip I saw was on the telegraph website and only showed the bit where he went through the little gate.

estebanrey · 19 Dec 2012 at 23:15

Andy90 said:
I stand corrected then. The clip I saw was on the telegraph website and only showed the bit where he went through the little gate.

There is another camera on the front of the building where you can see the whole area covering the gate.

2 mins

Bald-Eagle22 · 20 Dec 2012 at 01:28

Slam62 said:
This post certainly does not get you any sympathy

Why should we believe your character or attitude has changed.

Was certainly not looking for any sympathy , god especially not on here .

It was to merely point out that if I am wrong I put my hands up to it and take the punishment i deserve , my character or attitude to the police ( they can all rot on a ****** stick ) was not the point of my post .

The original post was to point out my experience of Police lying in court and when I asked for the radio records to prove it I effectively was told to shut up .

Zbornak · 20 Dec 2012 at 01:45

Does anyone know how the CCTV footage has become public?

Richie · 20 Dec 2012 at 07:02

Bald-Eagle22 said:
I had a very similar thing happen to myself but in addition to that both traffic officers did not do the following :

3. No N.I.P sent within 14 days of the alleged offence .

I received a summons to court 8 months after the alleged offence was committed as the CPS asked the court for an extension 6 months after the date date of the offence.

So I summons both traffic officers into court pleading not guilty to any speeding offence using no notification of a " Notice Of Intention Of Prosecution " as my defence ,

If your defence was no NIP then I am not surprised it failed. NIP's only need to be given through the post where the accused (you in this case) has not been given a Section 1 notice (Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988) already. This is normally in the case of cameras etc i.e. where the driver has not been stopped and spoken to by police officers themselves.

See Section 1(a) here which would be relevant to yourself - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/1

(1)Subject to section 2 of this Act, [F1a person shall not be convicted of an offence to which this section applies unless]—
(a)he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration,

The fact they stopped you and told you that you may be prosecuted is sufficient to fufil the Section 1 notice i.e. a "verbal" NIP if you will.

FutileBreadMachine · 20 Dec 2012 at 07:12

I don't know the footage is only being viewed now, or why it wasn't used in his defence if it was aleady available.

Biohazard · 20 Dec 2012 at 08:21

FutileBreadMachine said:
I don't know the footage is only being viewed now, or why it wasn't used in his defence if it was aleady available.

It was viewed back then of course, it was announced that it was pretty useless by Downing Street due to lack of sound recording.

That was in the days following the breaking of the initial story.

FutileBreadMachine · 20 Dec 2012 at 08:27

Biohazard said:
It was viewed back then of course, it was announced that it was pretty useless by Downing Street due to lack of sound recording.

That was in the days following the breaking of the initial story.

I see. I wonder why they didn't realise it didn't tally with the "witness"'s account. Perhqps they weren't aware of the contents of that email.

robgmun · 20 Dec 2012 at 11:19

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20795489

The man was arrested at around 2000 GMT on Wednesday "on suspicion of intentionally encouraging or assisting the commission of an indictable offence on or around" last Friday.

WTF?? Are the police now making up laws as they're going along?? Even if he did encourag or assist it the officer that sent the email that's the complete moron!

Von Smallhausen · 20 Dec 2012 at 11:22

This will turn into a witch hunt. I wonder how the sec 24 Neccessity Test was navigated for the arrest ?

do_ron_ron · 20 Dec 2012 at 11:32

Von Smallhausen said:
This will turn into a witch hunt. I wonder how the sec 24 Neccessity Test was navigated for the arrest ?

The officer in question will be hung out to dry. A lot of attention on this guy to try to somehow fabricate a conspiracy theory. Until the two policemen at the source retract their complaint the ex-Whip is still guilty.

estebanrey · 20 Dec 2012 at 12:12

do_ron_ron said:
The officer in question will be hung out to dry. A lot of attention on this guy to try to somehow fabricate a conspiracy theory. Until the two policemen at the source retract their complaint the ex-Whip is still guilty.

No one is guilty until a court of law says so. Thankfully we don't live in that much of a police state they can hand out convictions yet.

Cosimo · 20 Dec 2012 at 13:09

Must be getting serious as it's now called "Plebgate".

Destination · 20 Dec 2012 at 13:13

do_ron_ron said:
The officer in question will be hung out to dry. y.

He should be hung out to dry.
He lied.
He made up a story, wrote a letter, and pretended to be somewhere he is not.
The is no way his man can stand in court in future and try to prosecute any criminal. He has cmpletely removed all credibility from any evidence he could give.

I hope crims cant retrospectively apply his dodgyness against their convictions.