Police Officer Frames Bloke On Camera

Hyburnate · 7 Feb 2014 at 00:01

Police officers can't just say I saw you do it and then they get prosecuted with it. A police officer will charge someone on suspicion with something then they gather evidence for CPS and then CPS will then decide if they have a case.

TheVoice · 7 Feb 2014 at 00:08

Phantom Shadow said:
If you look closely in the video his clothes say "Police Evidence Gatherer". From what I can make out this means he isn't a real policeman?

No, he's a police officer.

estebanrey · 7 Feb 2014 at 00:25

Hyburnate said:
Police officers can't just say I saw you do it and then they get prosecuted with it. A police officer will charge someone on suspicion with something then they gather evidence for CPS and then CPS will then decide if they have a case.

Which effectively gives police officers carte-blanche to arrest anyone they don't like the look of without repercussion.

teaboy5 · 7 Feb 2014 at 00:27

The Police Officer was out of order there. But if the guy with the video hadn't had a drink at all, he should have took the test just to prove a point and who thing would have ended right there.

Totality · 7 Feb 2014 at 00:27

Hyburnate said:
Police officers can't just say I saw you do it and then they get prosecuted with it. A police officer will charge someone on suspicion with something then they gather evidence for CPS and then CPS will then decide if they have a case.

Not true in the police state. My housemate overtook a car which happened to be an off duty cop on his day off. The off duty cop called ahead to one of his mates who was on duty and my housemate was pulled over 30mins down the main road and done for speeding.

He wasn't speeding when near the marked car, but they just pulled him over and he was done based on the word of the off duty cop in his family car. Housemate received a fixed penalty notice over it and told if he fights it its his words against a cops.

deko · 7 Feb 2014 at 00:30

Totality said:
Not true in the police state. My housemate overtook a car which happened to be an off duty cop on his day off. The off duty cop called ahead to one of his mates who was on duty and my housemate was pulled over 30mins down the main road and done for speeding.

He wasn't speeding when near the marked car, but they just pulled him over and he was done based on the word of the off duty cop in his family car. Housemate received a fixed penalty notice over it and told if he fights it its his words against a cops.

That doesn't really sound like the full story, a single off-duty cop in a car with an uncalibrated speedo would get laughed out of court.

spoffle · 7 Feb 2014 at 00:36

deko said:
That doesn't really sound like the full story, a single off-duty cop in a car with an uncalibrated speedo would get laughed out of court.

Which is probably why they said

Housemate received a fixed penalty notice over it and told if he fights it its his words against a cops.

To try and put him off going to court over it because they know it'd never go in their favour.

estebanrey · 7 Feb 2014 at 00:43

deko said:
That doesn't really sound like the full story, a single off-duty cop in a car with an uncalibrated speedo would get laughed out of court.

Whilst your faith in the judicial system is cute, it's misplaced.

I was zapped by a speed gun in a scenario where the police broke every guideline in the book. They were hiding behind a wall (against ACPO guidelines) and took their reading from over 100m away (proven to be unreliable by various tests).

I challenged it and lost because the officer in question came into court and said [lied] that I had admitted speeding when cautioned but thought that 40 mph was the limit on that road. In reality I was silent during the whole process knowing anything I said could be "used against me".

Guess what? The police officer's testimony was believed and I was ignored. I decided against challenging as it would cost me a fortune to take it to the next level.

That lone experience has dented my trust in the Police.

Werewolf · 7 Feb 2014 at 00:54

estebanrey said:
I suspect that he had been drinking that afternoon, he refused because they were already trying to frame him and a positive test coupled with the officer's 'photographic memory' would have added more fuel to their bull **** fire.

I've seen on another forum that the guy in question was known to the police, and was also a "freeman of the land", and a generally awkward sod.
Which generally rings my "don't believe the video without knowing what happened before (and after)" bells.

tamzzy said:
Hope he doesnt lol. I see another 440k payout like that pliceman who battered an oap's car and was caught on film

Was that the officer who won a constructive dismissal case because he followed a normal procedure (from memory) to try and secure the keys from a driver who had already driven away from one stop, and refused to stop for over quarter of an hour, claiming he thought the lights and sirens behind him for much of that time were for someone else?
The age of the driver has nothing to do with it, as you can be 13-113 and still be a danger behind the wheel, or break motoring laws, or drive off and end up causing the police to chase your for quarter of an hour+.

estebanrey · 7 Feb 2014 at 01:06

Werewolf said:
I've seen on another forum that the guy in question was known to the police, and was also a "freeman of the land", and a generally awkward sod.

Ahh so he's an awkward sod. Well that totally justifies making stuff up then :rolleyes:

leezer3 · 7 Feb 2014 at 01:19

Completely agree that the guy in question was being a tit, and I'm absolutely certain we haven't had the full story. The police in this situation will be trying to keep a very volatile peace with eco-nuts, and there will have been background earlier in the day.

Whether or not the PC was making things up or not is not for me to decide, but I definitely don't like the statements he was making.

-Leezer-

WillyNelson · 7 Feb 2014 at 01:21

When the copper asked if he'd had a drink that morning the guy said "I've had tea this morning" which could easily have been misheard as "I've had two this morning". Probably where the mistake occurred.

estebanrey · 7 Feb 2014 at 01:24

WillyNelson said:
When the copper asked if he'd had a drink that morning the guy said "I've had tea this morning" which could easily have been misheard as "I've had two this morning". Probably where the mistake occurred.

This should be listed in the dictionary as the definition of 'bottom of the barrel scrapping'.

What next, Eminem is arrested because police thought he said he was a 'raper'?

jmc007 · 7 Feb 2014 at 01:46

WillyNelson said:
When the copper asked if he'd had a drink that morning the guy said "I've had tea this morning" which could easily have been misheard as "I've had two this morning". Probably where the mistake occurred.

Exactly.

Thing is as well, if he had only had tea, why not do the breath test?

Gogl · 7 Feb 2014 at 01:53

jmc007 said:
Exactly.

Thing is as well, if he had only had tea, why not do the breath test?

Maybe he was distracted by the radio playing tracks performed by a raper called Eminem.

Von Smallhausen · 7 Feb 2014 at 02:06

Totality said:
Not true in the police state. My housemate overtook a car which happened to be an off duty cop on his day off. The off duty cop called ahead to one of his mates who was on duty and my housemate was pulled over 30mins down the main road and done for speeding.

He wasn't speeding when near the marked car, but they just pulled him over and he was done based on the word of the off duty cop in his family car. Housemate received a fixed penalty notice over it and told if he fights it its his words against a cops.

Which police state is this ?

platinum87 · 7 Feb 2014 at 03:34

estebanrey said:
More evidence of coppers abusing their powers...
It seems all a police officer has to say is "I saw you"

He could, but not if he values the life of his family.

Efour · 7 Feb 2014 at 06:13

Jumped up coppers bending the rules and reality whilst performing to a **** with a camera. Whats new ??

Destination · 7 Feb 2014 at 07:31

estebanrey said:
Whilst your faith in the judicial system is cute, it's misplaced.

I was zapped by a speed gun in a scenario where the police broke every guideline in the book. They were hiding behind a wall (against ACPO guidelines) and took their reading from over 100m away (proven to be unreliable by various tests).

I challenged it and lost because the officer in question came into court and said [lied] that I had admitted speeding when cautioned but thought that 40 mph was the limit on that road. In reality I was silent during the whole process knowing anything I said could be "used against me".

Guess what? The police officer's testimony was believed and I was ignored. I decided against challenging as it would cost me a fortune to take it to the next level.

That lone experience has dented my trust in the Police.

Out of interest, were you speeding?

Werewolf · 7 Feb 2014 at 07:38

Hikari Kisugi said:
Out of interest, were you speeding?

Ah but what does that matter, the police didn't play fair and stand out in the road with lighted signs every 100 meters, and a spot light on them...

Remember the police are only allowed to catch you speeding if they're impossible to miss! (it's not like you're not meant to speed even when there isn't a police officer, or camera around).