Police Officer Frames Bloke On Camera

Unfortunately GMP have not shown themselves in a very favorable light through out the protests at Barton Moss.

There are a lot of videos of police stepping on peoples feet to get them to move out of the way/walk faster. There are confirmed reports of protesters being hurt/harmed by the police where no force was necessary - including an instance where an OAP, who had already advised the Police that he couldn't walk very fast, was man handled and pushed into a ditch at the side of the footpath and his lag was broken. He had done nothing wrong, he had not 'mouthed off' or been disrespectful, but because he didn't/ couldn't do as the police 'commanded' he got shoved out of the way and man handled by several officers for no reason!

Yes, I know protesters can be annoying - my Mother in Law as been down the to the Barton Moss site on a number of occasions and has been going on about the whole Fracking issue - but I thought the Police were supposed to be the peace keepers? Not the bullies which they are presenting themselves to be.

The protesters are being treated like criminals and the vast majority are local people who feel compelled to make a stand about something which they disagree with.

The policing of the situation is terrible and too heavy handed IMO
 
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...

This, I was ultra annoyed yesterday when I found out the cop who famously smashed up the old mans car with his truncheon got £430,000 compo because fellow cops teased him about it, seriously made me feel sick.
 
thep02 said:
This, I was ultra annoyed yesterday when I found out the cop who famously smashed up the old mans car with his truncheon got £430,000 compo because fellow cops teased him about it, seriously made me feel sick.
Click to expand...


Ingenious TROLL said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
thep02 said:
This, I was ultra annoyed yesterday when I found out the cop who famously smashed up the old mans car with his truncheon got £430,000 compo because fellow cops teased him about it, seriously made me feel sick.
Click to expand...

I said something regarding the OAP and Gwent PC a few pages back. Instead of repeating that, I'll ask you what you actually know about this incident? Please tell me what you know about this incident, and why you feel the payout was unjustified, and also what you think of the 65k the OAP received.

I look forward to your comments.

EDIT - Burnsy has taken the trouble of quoting my previous comment above, so there it is. Cheers :)
 
a1ex2001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why was the policeman an idiot? He smelt booze on the guys breath did he not? And if not why did the cameraman not submit to the breath test?
Pretty clear cut to me, surely if the "copper" was lieing/mistaken about smelling booze then it is the cameramans perogative to prove this?


*Edit. Estebarney I call you a liar. Just my opinion of course, though it is laughable how transparent your lies are. :D Which in turn makes you worse than the cause you were against.
 
Last edited:
Ingenious TROLL said:
The road traffic act stipulates -

It is an offence for a person to be in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place with excess alcohol in his breath or in blood or urine as evidenced by a certificate of analysis or statement.

Now being in charge of the vehicle simply means having easy access to it; for example having the keys in his pocket.

So I trust if he had provided a specimen of breath he would still have been arrested.
Click to expand...

Is this actually true though? I can't imagine it standing up in court very well. I mean loads of people drive somewhere with the intentions of leaving their car overnight and staying at a friends etc and driving back the next day.
 
Begbie said:
Is this actually true though? I can't imagine it standing up in court very well. I mean loads of people drive somewhere with the intentions of leaving their car overnight and staying at a friends etc and driving back the next day.
Click to expand...

There is loads of case law on this. It's not a simple offence to prove which is why many officers will simply park up until they see someone drive the car.
 
Begbie said:
Is this actually true though? I can't imagine it standing up in court very well. I mean loads of people drive somewhere with the intentions of leaving their car overnight and staying at a friends etc and driving back the next day.
Click to expand...

It's all about how easily accessible the vehicle is, in a potentially impaired state.

For example, if the driver was in the drivers seat with the keys in his hand or pocket it's reasonable to assume he may attempt to drive home, and has positioned himself as such to do so, where as if the keys were in the glove box that would be a good line of defence in that you were going to sleep in your car.

People go out everyday to pubs, and drive there. My mate often drives to the pub, taxi's back and then back the following day for his car once fit to drive so if this was put into effect word for word daily there would be so many problems.

It's judged on the circumstances personal merits, so going to the boot of your car for your jacket because its raining, having had a drink is reasonable excuse, where as, I was going to sit in the front of my car to sober up wouldn't be if you had your keys in a relatively easily accessible position.

But as Burnsy has said, its very difficult to ever properly prove, and officers will often wait until the car has moved off before stopping the driver.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I would love to tell you I haven't heard of anything remotely similar to this, but I'd be lying. Like I said, I'm sorry you've had a crap experience, but thankfully the majority of cases aren't like this, although it's not as rare as it should be.
Click to expand...

Hence my original point of not trusting any of them ;)

I can't honestly say I've ever dealt with the Police and had a positive experience, of course, it isn't like this for everyone but it contributes massively to why people don't feel they can rely on the Police.

It couldn't have been more clear cut from what happened but they managed to balls it up from start to finish, my fiancée being put in a dangerous position also didn't help but the Police/CPS couldn't have cared less.
 
Surprised to see this on here.

When I first watched the video, even I thought he said he had 2 drinks, that's the point the officer went a little bit more serious.

Then secondly, he did the right thing and asked him to provide a sample, what does he expect?

What rubbish video and probably what a standard police officer would do trying to enforce the law, he even said PLEASE rejoin the line!
 
Last edited:
Guy on camera is a ****...

I don't see any framing going on. If instead of being a total banger he cooperated with the police then this would have gone differently.

The guy said he had tea but I can see how it sounded like he said two.
 
TrixiBuG said:
Unfortunately GMP have not shown themselves in a very favorable light through out the protests at Barton Moss.

There are a lot of videos of police stepping on peoples feet to get them to move out of the way/walk faster. There are confirmed reports of protesters being hurt/harmed by the police where no force was necessary - including an instance where an OAP, who had already advised the Police that he couldn't walk very fast, was man handled and pushed into a ditch at the side of the footpath and his lag was broken. He had done nothing wrong, he had not 'mouthed off' or been disrespectful, but because he didn't/ couldn't do as the police 'commanded' he got shoved out of the way and man handled by several officers for no reason!

Yes, I know protesters can be annoying - my Mother in Law as been down the to the Barton Moss site on a number of occasions and has been going on about the whole Fracking issue - but I thought the Police were supposed to be the peace keepers? Not the bullies which they are presenting themselves to be.

The protesters are being treated like criminals and the vast majority are local people who feel compelled to make a stand about something which they disagree with.

The policing of the situation is terrible and too heavy handed IMO
Click to expand...

They are not called the police 'Force' for nothing...
 
Im sorry but how is this 'okay' for the police to do

Its the same protest march as the op video and it just highlights the unnecessary actions by the GMP:


Same incident but from a different angle


And on this video, skip to 7.45 in and see what they do to someone who just wanted to report a lorry with an invalided number plate...granted the guy is annoying but is that an excuse to arrest someone these days? All he wanted to do was report that a truck had no number plate and no one even spoke to him

All these videos seem to do is show that GMP have been given orders to ignore everyone, move them on and if anyone annoys you arrest them for what ever reason...
 
I'll agree with Burnsy that it's usually the CPS at fault in a lot of failed cases these days. It seems they're not working in the interests of victims but in the interests of purse strings.

I severely distrust the CPS because of an incident 2 years ago.

Neighbour across the street reversed into the side of my sister's car, causing about £300 of damage. He got out of his car, inspected the damage he'd caused, got back in his car and drove off. Made no attempt to report it/inform us.
Unfortunately for him it was all caught on HD CCTV, which was clear enough to show his face and reg plate, time-stamped etc.
We called the police and the young officer that attended said she was really surprised at the quality of the images. Said without a doubt they'll get a conviction from it.

A week later she returned and said "I'm really sorry but no further action is going to be taken. The CPS said there was "A lack of evidence"

So:

Clear CCTV footage, showing the whole crime, including the perpetrator.
Paint transfer on both vehicles
1 independent witness (neighbour further down the street)

is insufficient evidence.

One good bit did come of it though, the guy also denied the incident to his insurance company. His insurance was going to drop the matter until we informed them of the CCTV footage, which they accepted as evidence, paid out and cancelled his insurance. (we know they cancelled because the neighbour was heard ranting about how he was the victim)
 
TrixiBuG said:
And on this video, skip to 7.45 in and see what they do to someone who just wanted to report a lorry with an invalided number plate...granted the guy is annoying but is that an excuse to arrest someone these days? All he wanted to do was report that a truck had no number plate and no one even spoke to him
Click to expand...

I haven't seen that video yet, but are you seriously suggesting that officers as part of a PSU serial are going to sit down and take a report of a numberplate that doesn't conform to regulations? There is a time and place for that.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I haven't seen that video yet, but are you seriously suggesting that officers as part of a PSU serial are going to sit down and take a report of a numberplate that doesn't conform to regulations? There is a time and place for that.
Click to expand...

I understand that but everyone just ignored him. No one even acknowledged him. All it would have taken (surely) would have been someone to say "Yes, I see your point, but you will have to take it up with [insert correct procedure here]. Let me give you [insert contact info here] and take it up with them", but he was ignored :(

Edit: ignored then turned on. Like I said, yeah he was being a pain/annoying but there was no need to do what they did. Or maybe I am naive
 
Last edited:
TrixiBuG said:
I understand that but everyone just ignored him. No one even acknowledged him. All it would have taken (surely) would have been someone to say "Yes, I see your point, but you will have to take it up with [insert correct procedure here]. Let me give you [insert contact info here] and take it up with them", but he was ignored :(
Click to expand...

That simply doesn't work in the real world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom