Police Officer Frames Bloke On Camera

Be thankful you do not live in the days of the old peelers that would beat the **** out of you on site, were tall and had tashes. Sometimes the country is so PC (no pun intended) that dodgy scumbags who get to know the system play havoc and waste a lot of police time.

Not sticking up for the bent copper here, there are far more corrupt places in the world to be living in. Let's hope he gets dealt with.
 
Werewolf said:
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...
Click to expand...

Not at all.

There is a chasm of difference between standing under a spotlight and hiding behind a wall, peeking round and pointing a gun shaped object at people.

The ACPO guidelines specifically forbid this because unless they make themselves clear someone could confuse them with a person aiming a firearm at them. Before you laugh, I think confusing someone peeking round a corner with a gun shaped object with a gunman is more reasonable than confusing someone holding a Blackberry or a Table leg with one.
 
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.
Click to expand...
exactly!

estebanrey said:
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'?
Click to expand...
Watch is again then and do t take a side until you are sure...




I was really wondering how the first officer managed to suddenly escalate the situation so rapidly, and with so much accusation and certainty. I watched back through the first part of the video and it is absolutely obvious that he misheard 'tea' for 'two'. Not scraping the barrel at all.

The weird thing is the officer didn't respond to it straight away and look for a correction, he just comes out with it after a short while and it makes it look like he just made it up completely there and then.

When you only have hindsight it's easy to see what went wrong here, but when a bunch of blokes on the ground can literally only move forward and not go back on what they said, or misheard then the course of action is inevitable... Someone will be arrested and everyone will hate the police when they see the video.

On a side note the video starts at a certain point - we have no idea what happened before that point, so if you are going to take the slither of time that you witnessed from a recording at face value, then at least deconstruct it from every point of view .

My personal views are it all looked a bit harsh, until the penny dropped and I realised what must have happened... Play the scenario out again in your head and replace 'i had tea' with 'i had two' and guess how the officer would have responded to that.... The outcome is no different, this was all just one big mess of bravado and no one won.
 
Copper was an idiot, man with camera was an idiot. The coppers job is not to rise to the bait of idiots and he failed miserably and should be embarrassed by his behavior.
 
bad for both parties i think.

the officer shouldnt have accused him of saying he'd had a drink but then if the guy filming was in fact sober and hadnt been drinking he should have taken the test and said "i told you so" after.
he was just causing trouble for himself (he did sound like he'd been drinking though)
 
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.
Click to expand...

I have had similar experiences Barney , I even had a traffic officer pull me for speeding and was not aware of the speed limit - no NIP was issued within 14 days and he could not caution me as he did not know the offence committed , I was summons to court 8 months later . I had one officers testimony dismissed but the other told bare face lies . I even asked for a copy of the radio records to be played in court to confirm him asking the speed limit to HQ wich they refused to play .

I was convicted for doing 10 MPH over the speed limit and in the courts words " I have to take the officer word over yours ". My point being the courts are all pro police .

Now if I am pulled cover my smart phone goes straight on and in there faces - low and behold I have not been prosecuted for anything in the last three times they have ,

I think it's hight time all individual officers wear personal video cameras . They are all to me Nazis - along with the CSA ?
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...

Tamzzy, you don't have a clue what you are talking about and I would firmly suggest you do some digging into the case before talking the drivel you just did.

He's no 'poor old innocent OAP' and personally I fully support the PC in his actions, and I am pleased with the outcome as a whole, apart from the OAP getting a £65K payout because of people with no operational experience offering goodwill apologies for the 'nasty' policemen chasing him.
 
estebanrey said:
In fact my law teacher advised us if we are ever followed by a police car after having a swift pint and you're a near home was to get to your residence, run inside and down all the alcohol you have your house before they ring the door bell. Not the most moral of lecturers I'll admit but he knew his **** when it came to the law.
Click to expand...

Expect the officers not to ring the doorbell but force entry to your home to arrest you.

estebanrey said:
They could have told their colleague to stop being a dick, why do they have to follow the 'Blue Code of Silence'? The sooner police officers (or any trade) stop sticking up for their own despite evidence to the contrary the better.
Click to expand...

Police officers stick up for their own when they think it's reasonable. If an officer is corrupt, I think you'll find they'll be reported pretty fast.

estebanrey said:
AFAIK the law states they must have reasonable grounds for suspicion. Unfortunately, in practice this often means "I said it" therefore it's true and enough to kidnap you for a few hours because you're being a pain in the ass.
Click to expand...

How do you know the Inspector wasn't telling the truth? Perhaps he did see the male driving in the morning (perhaps just an hour or two ago) and smells alochol? Perhaps he's been observing the male since he got out of the car?


I don't know if this is the case or not, but neither do you.

teaboy5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would be the pragmatic approach.

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.
Click to expand...

You can be convicted without a calibrated measuring device, but you need to be doing warp speeds to avoid any doubt.
 
Ingenious TROLL said:
He's no 'poor old innocent OAP' and personally I fully support the PC in his actions, and I am pleased with the outcome as a whole, apart from the OAP getting a £65K payout because of people with no operational experience offering goodwill apologies for the 'nasty' policemen chasing him.
Click to expand...

+1
 
I think the police and MPs ect are forgetting that we(the tax payer) are their employers and they(police+MPs) are the employees.
 
esoteric said:
With how distracted the copper was it's plausible he misheard "I've had tea" for "I've had two".
Click to expand...

That was my initial thought too, as I have a genuine belief from how he is saying it, that he heard I've had 2, opposed to I've had tea..

It's not uncommon for drink driver to admit to 'having a few' but the moment the mention of breathalyser comes out it often changes to something else as when he say's tea more clearly, the officer may believe he is now lying.

Of course that may not be the case, but as pointed out above, it is evident the Inspector and this man have had previous experience in dealing with each other, resulting in the officer using past experiences as grounds for his behaviour.

I would genuinely hope the Inspector is not dishonestly trying to entrap the man, and that there are firm beliefs he has been driving whilst under the influence.

I believe being drunk, or under the influence of alcohol whilst in charge of a motor vehicle will likely play part in the Inspectors decision here, as if he was considerably over the influence, had his car keys on him, there would be reasonable grounds to assume he may later attempt to drive. This is of course an assumption based on the little information the video provided.
 
he blatantly lied on camera, saying the guy admitted to having 'a couple of drinks', that morning, he was setting him up....

he is a wrong un, as they say,

and should be sacked, and his colleges would be happy he was, because he is a liability to them as well.
 
deuse said:
I think the police and MPs ect are forgetting that we(the tax payer) are their employers and they(police+MPs) are the employees.
Click to expand...

I think you need to rephrase your statement, you don't employ anyone, our taxes fund organisations such as the police.

To state tax payers are employers is simply misrepresentation.
 
soundood said:
he blatantly lied on camera, saying the guy admitted to having 'a couple of drinks', that morning, he was setting him up....

he is a wrong un, as they say,

and should be sacked, and his colleges would be happy he was, because he is a liability to them as well.
Click to expand...

So if he did just drink tea in the morning, how could the Inspector be setting him up? The breath kit would read zero and the guy would be free to carry on his day. If it came back zero he couldn't be arrested.
 
What if he done a breath test and failed?

Surely he could just be like, yeah I got out my car and knecked a bottle of vodka. Surely the whole thing was pointless. I would've just done a breath test though.
 
Begbie said:
What if he done a breath test and failed?

Surely he could just be like, yeah I got out my car and knecked a bottle of vodka. Surely the whole thing was pointless. I would've just done a breath test though.
Click to expand...

In all likelihood, he'd be arrested give a defence in interview and either avoid being charged (most likely) or be found not guilty at court. Turns out he chose to get a driving conviction instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom