Trial date has been set... March.
The defence lawyer told my husband that my police witness statement was the best damn defence witness statement she had ever seen and she's looking forward to cross examining the police officer.
I need to vent...
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
I need to vent...
OK. A little confused here.
Was he read his rights before he tried to leave? Was he under arrest? That is the only way it's unlawful arrest.
I think, regardless, he really should be charged with assaulting an officer. He was told not to leave and he tried. Just because she was not seriously injured should not matter. It matters not whether she was right or wrong, he was told to wait. Should he have stayed put perhaps another officer would have come and unraveled the entire thing.
I'm not talking about what is morally right or wrong but legally what is right or wrong. In this case he was wrong. Had it happened on the side of a road and it was clear, her would have left possibly hurting her in the process. But he was unable to get very far and he did tag her thus. . . guilty.
BUT, perhaps she was wrong in the first place or perhaps not, either way that is an entirely different matter.
Was he read his rights before he tried to leave? Was he under arrest? That is the only way it's unlawful arrest.
I think, regardless, he really should be charged with assaulting an officer. He was told not to leave and he tried. Just because she was not seriously injured should not matter. It matters not whether she was right or wrong, he was told to wait. Should he have stayed put perhaps another officer would have come and unraveled the entire thing.
I'm not talking about what is morally right or wrong but legally what is right or wrong. In this case he was wrong. Had it happened on the side of a road and it was clear, her would have left possibly hurting her in the process. But he was unable to get very far and he did tag her thus. . . guilty.
BUT, perhaps she was wrong in the first place or perhaps not, either way that is an entirely different matter.
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
Mae West
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
911;1464759 wrote: OK. A little confused here.
Was he read his rights before he tried to leave? Was he under arrest? That is the only way it's unlawful arrest.
I think, regardless, he really should be charged with assaulting an officer. He was told not to leave and he tried. Just because she was not seriously injured should not matter. It matters not whether she was right or wrong, he was told to wait. Should he have stayed put perhaps another officer would have come and unraveled the entire thing.
I'm not talking about what is morally right or wrong but legally what is right or wrong. In this case he was wrong. Had it happened on the side of a road and it was clear, her would have left possibly hurting her in the process. But he was unable to get very far and he did tag her thus. . . guilty.
BUT, perhaps she was wrong in the first place or perhaps not, either way that is an entirely different matter.
If his child seat turned out to be In fact legal ( the reason she stopped him Initially ) then It can be argued, she had no reason to stand In front of his car and refuse to let him leave the field. At the moment In time she did this, she had prior done a vehicle check and he was not wanted etc. and the car had nothing wrong with It ( she Inspected the car ).
At the point she stood In front of his bumper and told him he was not leaving, try to Imagine, several hundreds of people all around this car at a busy market.
Behind her were approx 20 people looking at stalls. He's In the drivers seat with not only his engine running but also other cars engines running behind.
There were children nearby on a bouncy castle screaming. there was an Ice cream van chiming. People were calling out, babies crying, all sorts In a busy market. Hence, I have given evidence that I do not believe that at the point she stood In front of his bumper and said ( she did not shout) you are not leaving, that from Inside the car, he could not have heard her.
His lawyer Is saying that up until the time the car touched her leg, she was In no legal position to detain him. It was only when the bumper touched her leg, that she had cause for arrest.
I can not post the photographs as they are evidence but If you could see them, you'd understand why I believe he could not have heard her.
Was he read his rights before he tried to leave? Was he under arrest? That is the only way it's unlawful arrest.
I think, regardless, he really should be charged with assaulting an officer. He was told not to leave and he tried. Just because she was not seriously injured should not matter. It matters not whether she was right or wrong, he was told to wait. Should he have stayed put perhaps another officer would have come and unraveled the entire thing.
I'm not talking about what is morally right or wrong but legally what is right or wrong. In this case he was wrong. Had it happened on the side of a road and it was clear, her would have left possibly hurting her in the process. But he was unable to get very far and he did tag her thus. . . guilty.
BUT, perhaps she was wrong in the first place or perhaps not, either way that is an entirely different matter.
If his child seat turned out to be In fact legal ( the reason she stopped him Initially ) then It can be argued, she had no reason to stand In front of his car and refuse to let him leave the field. At the moment In time she did this, she had prior done a vehicle check and he was not wanted etc. and the car had nothing wrong with It ( she Inspected the car ).
At the point she stood In front of his bumper and told him he was not leaving, try to Imagine, several hundreds of people all around this car at a busy market.
Behind her were approx 20 people looking at stalls. He's In the drivers seat with not only his engine running but also other cars engines running behind.
There were children nearby on a bouncy castle screaming. there was an Ice cream van chiming. People were calling out, babies crying, all sorts In a busy market. Hence, I have given evidence that I do not believe that at the point she stood In front of his bumper and said ( she did not shout) you are not leaving, that from Inside the car, he could not have heard her.
His lawyer Is saying that up until the time the car touched her leg, she was In no legal position to detain him. It was only when the bumper touched her leg, that she had cause for arrest.
I can not post the photographs as they are evidence but If you could see them, you'd understand why I believe he could not have heard her.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
I need to vent...
Oscar Namechange;1464761 wrote: If his child seat turned out to be In fact legal ( the reason she stopped him Initially ) then It can be argued, she had no reason to stand In front of his car and refuse to let him leave the field. At the moment In time she did this, she had prior done a vehicle check and he was not wanted etc. and the car had nothing wrong with It ( she Inspected the car ).
At the point she stood In front of his bumper and told him he was not leaving, try to Imagine, several hundreds of people all around this car at a busy market.
Behind her were approx 20 people looking at stalls. He's In the drivers seat with not only his engine running but also other cars engines running behind.
There were children nearby on a bouncy castle screaming. there was an Ice cream van chiming. People were calling out, babies crying, all sorts In a busy market. Hence, I have given evidence that I do not believe that at the point she stood In front of his bumper and said ( she did not shout) you are not leaving, that from Inside the car, he could not have heard her.
His lawyer Is saying that up until the time the car touched her leg, she was In no legal position to detain him. It was only when the bumper touched her leg, that she had cause for arrest.
I can not post the photographs as they are evidence but If you could see them, you'd understand why I believe he could not have heard her.
It doesn't matter whether she had the right to detain him or not and frankly I believe she did. Sorry. I believe this because she could detain him for further info gathering, investigation or a second opinion.
If she had been a citizen, do you think he would have tried to drive around with the possibility of hitting her? She was a law enforcement officer with the option of detaining him and he, not being a lawyer, should have waited and not tried to run from an officer. It is never right to run from an officer at any time.
Now remember, I am basing this on our law enforcement rules and laws. Never run, never backtalk and always mind your manners or you'll find yourself in the hoosegow!:wah:
As far as the noise goes, it has been my experience that when something is happening to me, the outside world gets a little quieter and further away. My little world contracts and it's just me and whomever is there with me.
At the point she stood In front of his bumper and told him he was not leaving, try to Imagine, several hundreds of people all around this car at a busy market.
Behind her were approx 20 people looking at stalls. He's In the drivers seat with not only his engine running but also other cars engines running behind.
There were children nearby on a bouncy castle screaming. there was an Ice cream van chiming. People were calling out, babies crying, all sorts In a busy market. Hence, I have given evidence that I do not believe that at the point she stood In front of his bumper and said ( she did not shout) you are not leaving, that from Inside the car, he could not have heard her.
His lawyer Is saying that up until the time the car touched her leg, she was In no legal position to detain him. It was only when the bumper touched her leg, that she had cause for arrest.
I can not post the photographs as they are evidence but If you could see them, you'd understand why I believe he could not have heard her.
It doesn't matter whether she had the right to detain him or not and frankly I believe she did. Sorry. I believe this because she could detain him for further info gathering, investigation or a second opinion.
If she had been a citizen, do you think he would have tried to drive around with the possibility of hitting her? She was a law enforcement officer with the option of detaining him and he, not being a lawyer, should have waited and not tried to run from an officer. It is never right to run from an officer at any time.
Now remember, I am basing this on our law enforcement rules and laws. Never run, never backtalk and always mind your manners or you'll find yourself in the hoosegow!:wah:
As far as the noise goes, it has been my experience that when something is happening to me, the outside world gets a little quieter and further away. My little world contracts and it's just me and whomever is there with me.
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
Mae West
I need to vent...
911;1464829 wrote: As far as the noise goes, it has been my experience that when something is happening to me, the outside world gets a little quieter and further away. My little world contracts and it's just me and whomever is there with me.
That's a very good point. It's amazing how selective hearing can be when it needs to be. It's a bit like like when people in factories in deafening circumstances are still able to hold a normal conversation.
That's a very good point. It's amazing how selective hearing can be when it needs to be. It's a bit like like when people in factories in deafening circumstances are still able to hold a normal conversation.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
From what the lawyer said and from what I have always believed, a police officer does have the right to stop you you and question you, however, If there Is no crime to answer, you must be allowed to leave.
Remember, the child seat was deemed legal, he wasn't acting suspiciously, she could find nothing wrong with the car after close Inspection, there was no alcohol etc Inside the car, after the vehicle check on him, he was not wanted or had previous,
Citizens Advice - Police powers
This Is Scotland but the same applies.
Before they stop and search you they must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will find one or more of the above. There are a few exceptions to this rule ,for example, if a serious violent incident has taken place, the police can stop and search you without having reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will find any of these things listed above.
Once you have given the police your name, address, date and place of birth and nationality, it is up to them to decide whether they want to ask more questions. If they don’t then you should be allowed to go. If they do want to ask you more questions and they suspect you of having committed a crime they can:-
She had no questions to ask him... there was no charge to answer, she had already checked everything.
I am sure his lawyer knows more about Illegal detention than we do here.
Remember, the child seat was deemed legal, he wasn't acting suspiciously, she could find nothing wrong with the car after close Inspection, there was no alcohol etc Inside the car, after the vehicle check on him, he was not wanted or had previous,
Citizens Advice - Police powers
This Is Scotland but the same applies.
Before they stop and search you they must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will find one or more of the above. There are a few exceptions to this rule ,for example, if a serious violent incident has taken place, the police can stop and search you without having reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will find any of these things listed above.
Once you have given the police your name, address, date and place of birth and nationality, it is up to them to decide whether they want to ask more questions. If they don’t then you should be allowed to go. If they do want to ask you more questions and they suspect you of having committed a crime they can:-
She had no questions to ask him... there was no charge to answer, she had already checked everything.
I am sure his lawyer knows more about Illegal detention than we do here.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
I need to vent...
FourPart;1464839 wrote: That's a very good point. It's amazing how selective hearing can be when it needs to be. It's a bit like like when people in factories in deafening circumstances are still able to hold a normal conversation.
Do you really believe that anyone sitting inside a car with the engine running and other vehicle's with their engines running in a crowded market of hundreds of people can hear what is being said outside his vehicle ?
Do you really believe that a police inspector would spend hours on the phone to my wife going into the breaches of police procedure if there were none? Do you really believe he would actually put that into an e mail that has now been commandeered by the defence ?
Do you believe he would not agree with her that there was every possibility the young man may not have heard the officer given the situation?
Do you believe that the inspector and my wife would not have agreed to have those breaches dealt with by him internally if this young man had selective hearing?
Do you really believe that anyone sitting inside a car with the engine running and other vehicle's with their engines running in a crowded market of hundreds of people can hear what is being said outside his vehicle ?
Do you really believe that a police inspector would spend hours on the phone to my wife going into the breaches of police procedure if there were none? Do you really believe he would actually put that into an e mail that has now been commandeered by the defence ?
Do you believe he would not agree with her that there was every possibility the young man may not have heard the officer given the situation?
Do you believe that the inspector and my wife would not have agreed to have those breaches dealt with by him internally if this young man had selective hearing?
I need to vent...
It has already been reported here about what was said between them, yet with all this supposed ambient noise, how would an onlooker be able to hear what was being said when those directly concerned could not?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
FourPart;1464892 wrote: It has already been reported here about what was said between them, yet with all this supposed ambient noise, how would an onlooker be able to hear what was being said when those directly concerned could not?
Sigh
The car was Initially stopped right In front of me. The driver and police officer was literally Infront of me ie a few feet.That's where the conversation and the vehicle check between the driver and the officer first began.
The car was In gridlock. Then he Inched forward as did the other cars. She then follows checking all around the car. While she was doing this, I went over to his driver's window and spoke with him. The gridlock moved again and he Inched forward. That Is the point she stood In front of the car and refused to let him leave.
When the knob started calling out to him ' yeah go on play the race card' etc etc, I went over and put my head and shoulders Inside the passenger window to check his little girl was ok and to ask him If he wanted me to look after her while this was being sorted. He spoke to me perfectly calmly and politely. As I took my head and shoulders out of the car, I was standing right by the passenger door at the front of the car... ie, the officer was just feet away from me... that's why I heard her but possible that he was Inside the car, he didn't given the noise on his side of the drivers side.
According to the officers statement and her chief witness, a few seconds after I have had my head and shoulders In the window of a car belonging to a complete stranger, he floored the accelerator In rage.
Even the Inspector admitted, that does not add up.
Sigh
The car was Initially stopped right In front of me. The driver and police officer was literally Infront of me ie a few feet.That's where the conversation and the vehicle check between the driver and the officer first began.
The car was In gridlock. Then he Inched forward as did the other cars. She then follows checking all around the car. While she was doing this, I went over to his driver's window and spoke with him. The gridlock moved again and he Inched forward. That Is the point she stood In front of the car and refused to let him leave.
When the knob started calling out to him ' yeah go on play the race card' etc etc, I went over and put my head and shoulders Inside the passenger window to check his little girl was ok and to ask him If he wanted me to look after her while this was being sorted. He spoke to me perfectly calmly and politely. As I took my head and shoulders out of the car, I was standing right by the passenger door at the front of the car... ie, the officer was just feet away from me... that's why I heard her but possible that he was Inside the car, he didn't given the noise on his side of the drivers side.
According to the officers statement and her chief witness, a few seconds after I have had my head and shoulders In the window of a car belonging to a complete stranger, he floored the accelerator In rage.
Even the Inspector admitted, that does not add up.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
Update
An Interesting afternoon with the defence team of the young man. I was asked to make more statements of conversations between myself and the Police Inspector re: breaches of police procedure... obviously, I can't go Into further details. The E mails he sent me have been subpoenaed by the defence and my replies to him talking about those breaches.
Oh how I enjoy being proved right !
At the time, on the day, I believe I witnessed three breaches of police procedure that I was aware of and these have been confirmed today as being correct.
The most Important, being that when she refused to let him go on his way In the first Instance, he was not under arrest... bear In mind, he was only arrested after this when his bumper touched her leg. This means that not under arrest, It was a brach of police procedure to attempt to detain him.
Also, In her police statement, she states nowhere that she asked him for his documents or ID... I confirmed this In my statement... thus, she breached police procedure by calling for a vehicle check without first asking for his docs and ID first.
The best bit... the Idiot who tried to Incite him racially and who Is now the officers chief witness has made a formal police statement that he heard me telling the young man to calm down... utter lies and bollocks !! How could he have heard what I was saying to the young man when I was whispering In his ear ?
Finally, something that stuck out like a sore thumb... how come every statement the officer took contains the words ' the officer was not at all racist'... oh come on.. did they all offer that ? Really ????
eta... I also am now In the knowledge that this young man has absolutely no previous.
An Interesting afternoon with the defence team of the young man. I was asked to make more statements of conversations between myself and the Police Inspector re: breaches of police procedure... obviously, I can't go Into further details. The E mails he sent me have been subpoenaed by the defence and my replies to him talking about those breaches.
Oh how I enjoy being proved right !
At the time, on the day, I believe I witnessed three breaches of police procedure that I was aware of and these have been confirmed today as being correct.
The most Important, being that when she refused to let him go on his way In the first Instance, he was not under arrest... bear In mind, he was only arrested after this when his bumper touched her leg. This means that not under arrest, It was a brach of police procedure to attempt to detain him.
Also, In her police statement, she states nowhere that she asked him for his documents or ID... I confirmed this In my statement... thus, she breached police procedure by calling for a vehicle check without first asking for his docs and ID first.
The best bit... the Idiot who tried to Incite him racially and who Is now the officers chief witness has made a formal police statement that he heard me telling the young man to calm down... utter lies and bollocks !! How could he have heard what I was saying to the young man when I was whispering In his ear ?
Finally, something that stuck out like a sore thumb... how come every statement the officer took contains the words ' the officer was not at all racist'... oh come on.. did they all offer that ? Really ????
eta... I also am now In the knowledge that this young man has absolutely no previous.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
I need to vent...
Wow. You have been a busy little bee!
Is this going to court or are they going to handle it in-house?
It's amazing what people will say when they pick a side. If you can't tell the truth or you don't want to get involved, just walk away or tell them you didn't hear anything instead of confusing an already confused event.
I still say kudos to you for standing up to what you think is a misdeed. I hope you don't get too much more bogged down in this. Keep us updated!
Is this going to court or are they going to handle it in-house?
It's amazing what people will say when they pick a side. If you can't tell the truth or you don't want to get involved, just walk away or tell them you didn't hear anything instead of confusing an already confused event.
I still say kudos to you for standing up to what you think is a misdeed. I hope you don't get too much more bogged down in this. Keep us updated!
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
Mae West
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
911;1465887 wrote: Wow. You have been a busy little bee!
Is this going to court or are they going to handle it in-house?
It's amazing what people will say when they pick a side. If you can't tell the truth or you don't want to get involved, just walk away or tell them you didn't hear anything instead of confusing an already confused event.
I still say kudos to you for standing up to what you think is a misdeed. I hope you don't get too much more bogged down in this. Keep us updated!
His trial Is set for March. I am Imagining that should he be acquitted, from what his lawyer has hinted, there will be reprecussions for that officer under a ' Malicious arrest ' suit.
He does have a firm of lawyers that are renowned for being the best criminal defence lawyers In the area.
The police officer who took my police statement happened to be the same officer who Interviewed the young man under caution. I asked the Inspector when I spoke to him If the young man was aggressive In the police station or during his arrest and he said no. I asked the officer who Interviewed him under caution If he was aggressive whilst being Interviewed under caution and he said no, not In the slightest.
So as I said to the Inspector at the time, It just doesn't stack up. My husband and I saw everything from start to finish and we know he wasn't aggressive. So what you have Is ' non aggressive, non aggressive, non aggressive, highly aggressive according to the arresting officer, non aggressive, non aggressive, non aggressive. It stinks.
There has recently been amendments In this country under section 60 because stats prove that young black men are 6 times as likely to be stopped by police randomly. His lawyer told us our police get away with this time after time after time because bystanders just won't get Involved.
I'm just happy to be vindicated In that I always believed from the start that a police officer In this country must first ask for driving documents and ID before calling In for a vehicle check. His lawyer confirmed that an officer can not just call In for a vehicle check without asking for documents first and can not unless there Is good reason the driver Is acting suspiciously, which he wasn't... he was shopping with his child that morning. So, she had absolutely no reason to call In for that vehicle check which Is why she stated he was very aggressive and that was just lies and an excuse.
Is this going to court or are they going to handle it in-house?
It's amazing what people will say when they pick a side. If you can't tell the truth or you don't want to get involved, just walk away or tell them you didn't hear anything instead of confusing an already confused event.
I still say kudos to you for standing up to what you think is a misdeed. I hope you don't get too much more bogged down in this. Keep us updated!
His trial Is set for March. I am Imagining that should he be acquitted, from what his lawyer has hinted, there will be reprecussions for that officer under a ' Malicious arrest ' suit.
He does have a firm of lawyers that are renowned for being the best criminal defence lawyers In the area.
The police officer who took my police statement happened to be the same officer who Interviewed the young man under caution. I asked the Inspector when I spoke to him If the young man was aggressive In the police station or during his arrest and he said no. I asked the officer who Interviewed him under caution If he was aggressive whilst being Interviewed under caution and he said no, not In the slightest.
So as I said to the Inspector at the time, It just doesn't stack up. My husband and I saw everything from start to finish and we know he wasn't aggressive. So what you have Is ' non aggressive, non aggressive, non aggressive, highly aggressive according to the arresting officer, non aggressive, non aggressive, non aggressive. It stinks.
There has recently been amendments In this country under section 60 because stats prove that young black men are 6 times as likely to be stopped by police randomly. His lawyer told us our police get away with this time after time after time because bystanders just won't get Involved.
I'm just happy to be vindicated In that I always believed from the start that a police officer In this country must first ask for driving documents and ID before calling In for a vehicle check. His lawyer confirmed that an officer can not just call In for a vehicle check without asking for documents first and can not unless there Is good reason the driver Is acting suspiciously, which he wasn't... he was shopping with his child that morning. So, she had absolutely no reason to call In for that vehicle check which Is why she stated he was very aggressive and that was just lies and an excuse.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
I need to vent...
In all my days, i have never witnessed a young black man, so goaded, so treated with such hostility and such aggression and blatant abuse of power given his child who was also thrown into the back of a police van was only two years old. Her father thrown in the cells with no provisions it appears for the care of that child in the police station surrounded by strangers. Oscar will wipe the floor with the prosecution and rightly so. A shocking and disgusting display i never want to see again. I am beyond proud of my wife for standing up for what she believes is right and the police should hang their heads in shame.
I need to vent...
From a law enforcement view, it's a shame that you have to ask for documents first before running a vehicle. More officers in this country get killed walking up to vehicle and asking for docs even after running the tag. Running the vehicle first lets the officer know if the vehicle is stolen or connected with a crime.
(Why are all your I's capitalized?)
(Why are all your I's capitalized?)
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
Mae West
I need to vent...
I don't get this thing about having to have documents, or reasonable cause to do a vehicle check. Vehicle checks are run continuously & automatically without even the intervention of an officer much of the time, so why should it be any different in this instance?
(I've often wondered about the I's as well - I've just presumed it to be possibly down to predictive typing or something, interpreting the 'I' as meaning in the first person & too much agro to have to keep going back to change it all the time)
(I've often wondered about the I's as well - I've just presumed it to be possibly down to predictive typing or something, interpreting the 'I' as meaning in the first person & too much agro to have to keep going back to change it all the time)
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
FourPart;1465951 wrote: I don't get this thing about having to have documents, or reasonable cause to do a vehicle check. Vehicle checks are run continuously & automatically without even the intervention of an officer much of the time, so why should it be any different in this instance?
(I've often wondered about the I's as well - I've just presumed it to be possibly down to predictive typing or something, interpreting the 'I' as meaning in the first person & too much agro to have to keep going back to change it all the time)
What you are over-looking Is police procedure. You are confusing that with the law.
Yes, Traffic cops can run a vehicle check from Inside their squad car but It has to be that the car or the driver Is acting suspiciously. They can not just run a vehicle check on you In order to get lucky and get a notch on their arrest sheet.
When the officer targeted this young man, remember he was not actually moving. He was stationary In a line of many cars waiting to exit the field. He was not acting suspiciously and the car was In perfect order. After all, had It not of been, she'd have arrested him for something else or had good cause to Issue a fixed penalty fine. The child's seat was deemed by police to be legal, the excuse she Initially gave for targeting him. Had the child seat not have been legal, she could have arrested him for that and she did not because she could not.
Police procedure, not law, but police procedure, Is that as she was not a Traffic cop, she must first ask for his licence, docs or ID. If he doesn't have his docs on him, that's why officers Issue a 7 day produce ticket. But they must Issue a 7 day producer and allow the driver on his way.
He was not on a motorway driving erratically where a unit can call for a vehicle check from Inside their car because they feel the car or the driver Is acting suspiciously and Is a danger. Traffic cops can not just run vehicle checks on roads In the hope they'll get lucky. They have to have a reason to call In. ie they suspect the driver is drunk or the car is stolen.
It Is different on a road with moving vehicles at speed. This young man was not on a busy road or any road. He was stationary In a field.
Police procedure, given, remember, he must be acting suspiciously, Is to first ask for his documents. If he does not have those on him, IF she finds something wrong with the vehicle, ie tail light out and If he Is not drunk, then she must Issue a 7 day producer. She could not Issue a 7 day producer In this case, because the car was In good order and the child seat was legal, nor was he acting suspiciously.
Because she did not ask him for his docs at any time, her calling In for a vehicle check was a breach of police procedure. They can't call In just because they don't like you. That's called harassment. To excuse her herself by calling In probably In the hope she was going to get lucky ie outstanding warrants or It being a stolen car, she lied stating he was very aggressive,
(I've often wondered about the I's as well - I've just presumed it to be possibly down to predictive typing or something, interpreting the 'I' as meaning in the first person & too much agro to have to keep going back to change it all the time)
What you are over-looking Is police procedure. You are confusing that with the law.
Yes, Traffic cops can run a vehicle check from Inside their squad car but It has to be that the car or the driver Is acting suspiciously. They can not just run a vehicle check on you In order to get lucky and get a notch on their arrest sheet.
When the officer targeted this young man, remember he was not actually moving. He was stationary In a line of many cars waiting to exit the field. He was not acting suspiciously and the car was In perfect order. After all, had It not of been, she'd have arrested him for something else or had good cause to Issue a fixed penalty fine. The child's seat was deemed by police to be legal, the excuse she Initially gave for targeting him. Had the child seat not have been legal, she could have arrested him for that and she did not because she could not.
Police procedure, not law, but police procedure, Is that as she was not a Traffic cop, she must first ask for his licence, docs or ID. If he doesn't have his docs on him, that's why officers Issue a 7 day produce ticket. But they must Issue a 7 day producer and allow the driver on his way.
He was not on a motorway driving erratically where a unit can call for a vehicle check from Inside their car because they feel the car or the driver Is acting suspiciously and Is a danger. Traffic cops can not just run vehicle checks on roads In the hope they'll get lucky. They have to have a reason to call In. ie they suspect the driver is drunk or the car is stolen.
It Is different on a road with moving vehicles at speed. This young man was not on a busy road or any road. He was stationary In a field.
Police procedure, given, remember, he must be acting suspiciously, Is to first ask for his documents. If he does not have those on him, IF she finds something wrong with the vehicle, ie tail light out and If he Is not drunk, then she must Issue a 7 day producer. She could not Issue a 7 day producer In this case, because the car was In good order and the child seat was legal, nor was he acting suspiciously.
Because she did not ask him for his docs at any time, her calling In for a vehicle check was a breach of police procedure. They can't call In just because they don't like you. That's called harassment. To excuse her herself by calling In probably In the hope she was going to get lucky ie outstanding warrants or It being a stolen car, she lied stating he was very aggressive,
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
911;1465940 wrote: From a law enforcement view, it's a shame that you have to ask for documents first before running a vehicle. More officers in this country get killed walking up to vehicle and asking for docs even after running the tag. Running the vehicle first lets the officer know if the vehicle is stolen or connected with a crime.
(Why are all your I's capitalized?)
This country Is very different to the USA. I watch a lot of your excellent crime shows and I admire US officers who really don't know what the hell Is going to happen when they approach a car.
Here In the UK, gun crime Is relatively unheard of In the suburbs. We do have an Issue with gun crime In London and some other major cities but this tends to be gang related gun crime. That's why police officers dealing with a call out Involving a firearm, are armed In the UK. We fight fire with fire In those cases.
In London, Government statistics show that young black men are 6 times more likely to be pulled over under stop and search laws than young white men and this Is why we have very recently seen amendments to Section 60 of the Stop and Search Clause. The lawyer In my case told me, often, the police will Invent reasons to pull them over and apparently this happens a lot In London.
This young man was not In London nor any major city where there Is a large ethnic population of Afro-Caribbeans, Nigerian, Somalian etc etc. he was In Bath a city deemed a World Heritage site.
Visit Bath - The Official Tourist Information Site for Bath Tourism
There are no black ethnic communities In the City of Bath Itself and the City Is surrounded by deep Countryside with farming, horse racing and cottage Industries. Ie the officer was not In the centre of London where you would see a large proportion of the population being ethnic, She was In an area, where even the police Inspector told me ' We don't see many black people In Bath'.... And that Is exactly why I believe she targeted him.
(Why are all your I's capitalized?)
This country Is very different to the USA. I watch a lot of your excellent crime shows and I admire US officers who really don't know what the hell Is going to happen when they approach a car.
Here In the UK, gun crime Is relatively unheard of In the suburbs. We do have an Issue with gun crime In London and some other major cities but this tends to be gang related gun crime. That's why police officers dealing with a call out Involving a firearm, are armed In the UK. We fight fire with fire In those cases.
In London, Government statistics show that young black men are 6 times more likely to be pulled over under stop and search laws than young white men and this Is why we have very recently seen amendments to Section 60 of the Stop and Search Clause. The lawyer In my case told me, often, the police will Invent reasons to pull them over and apparently this happens a lot In London.
This young man was not In London nor any major city where there Is a large ethnic population of Afro-Caribbeans, Nigerian, Somalian etc etc. he was In Bath a city deemed a World Heritage site.
Visit Bath - The Official Tourist Information Site for Bath Tourism
There are no black ethnic communities In the City of Bath Itself and the City Is surrounded by deep Countryside with farming, horse racing and cottage Industries. Ie the officer was not In the centre of London where you would see a large proportion of the population being ethnic, She was In an area, where even the police Inspector told me ' We don't see many black people In Bath'.... And that Is exactly why I believe she targeted him.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
I need to vent...
And so there is little wonder that black youth are disillusioned and have what is termed 'a chip on their shoulder'
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
Bruv;1465977 wrote: And so there is little wonder that black youth are disillusioned and have what is termed 'a chip on their shoulder' Totally agree.
As a country we can not expect social cohesion when the very people who should be protecting the country, create a wedge between ethnicity that leads to one minority feeling a sense of Injustice, an unfairness and a feeling of persecution. When they have created that divide In the first place, the authorities then whine when when we see riots on The Blackwater Estate, Brixton, Toxteth etc etc
As a country we can not expect social cohesion when the very people who should be protecting the country, create a wedge between ethnicity that leads to one minority feeling a sense of Injustice, an unfairness and a feeling of persecution. When they have created that divide In the first place, the authorities then whine when when we see riots on The Blackwater Estate, Brixton, Toxteth etc etc
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
I need to vent...
Originally Posted by Bruv
"And so there is little wonder that black youth are disillusioned and have what is termed 'a chip on their shoulder' "
Oscar Namechange;1465979 wrote: Totally agree.
Awestruck. Fabulous moment.
"And so there is little wonder that black youth are disillusioned and have what is termed 'a chip on their shoulder' "
Oscar Namechange;1465979 wrote: Totally agree.
Awestruck. Fabulous moment.
I need to vent...
As you say, it must be something do do with policy, rather than law, and t he differences between Traffic & Regular Patrol police, as I know the automated systems are constantly running checks on vehicles without any intervention by the police themselves. They just scan the number plate & if there's any issues with having been reported stolen, the driver banned, no tax / insurance / mot, etc., then it's Red Flagged & brought to the officer's attention
Some people see this as being too "Big Brother"-ish, although, personally, I welcome it. It's much like CCTV. If you've got nothing to hide, why should you have any concerns. Plus, I wonder if anyone who has their car stolen & recovered by auto-flagging would have the same opinion of she system. The thing is that I thought this was standard policy throughout the Police & that no reasons were required.
Some people see this as being too "Big Brother"-ish, although, personally, I welcome it. It's much like CCTV. If you've got nothing to hide, why should you have any concerns. Plus, I wonder if anyone who has their car stolen & recovered by auto-flagging would have the same opinion of she system. The thing is that I thought this was standard policy throughout the Police & that no reasons were required.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
FourPart;1465986 wrote: As you say, it must be something do do with policy, rather than law, and t he differences between Traffic & Regular Patrol police, as I know the automated systems are constantly running checks on vehicles without any intervention by the police themselves. They just scan the number plate & if there's any issues with having been reported stolen, the driver banned, no tax / insurance / mot, etc., then it's Red Flagged & brought to the officer's attention
Some people see this as being too "Big Brother"-ish, although, personally, I welcome it. It's much like CCTV. If you've got nothing to hide, why should you have any concerns. Plus, I wonder if anyone who has their car stolen & recovered by auto-flagging would have the same opinion of she system. The thing is that I thought this was standard policy throughout the Police & that no reasons were required.
In traffic police. She was not a traffic cop.
Totally regardless, had there have been any slightest thing wrong with the car, the child seat or him acting suspiciously, she would have had reason for a vehicle check and she would have called In for a vehicle check on those grounds. She could not do that. Having not followed police procedure which Is to ask for Docs and ID first, she had no Idea of who he was. Had she of needed to give him a fixed penalty fine, she could not have done that because she never asked for them. Think about It... It order to serve a fixed penalty fine, you have to fill out the form and you have to obtain that from name and address on Docs. If they don't ask for docs, they can't do that can they ? That's why they have that procedure.
Further on, after carrying out a detailed Inspection of the car and finding nothing, as If she found anything, she'd have booked him for It, she then stands Infront of the bumper and refuses him to go on his way.
The law and police procedure Is that following a vehicle check, If there Is nothing, ie not a stolen car or no outstanding warrants, they must be allowed to go on their way. At the time she stood Infront of his bumper, he was not under arrest nor were there any outstanding warrants along with absolutely no reason to serve a fixed penalty fine... there-fore, the case Is, he was Illegally detained.
How ever much you want to sympathise with the officer... This Is what the defence lawyer is presenting the case on.
Some people see this as being too "Big Brother"-ish, although, personally, I welcome it. It's much like CCTV. If you've got nothing to hide, why should you have any concerns. Plus, I wonder if anyone who has their car stolen & recovered by auto-flagging would have the same opinion of she system. The thing is that I thought this was standard policy throughout the Police & that no reasons were required.
In traffic police. She was not a traffic cop.
Totally regardless, had there have been any slightest thing wrong with the car, the child seat or him acting suspiciously, she would have had reason for a vehicle check and she would have called In for a vehicle check on those grounds. She could not do that. Having not followed police procedure which Is to ask for Docs and ID first, she had no Idea of who he was. Had she of needed to give him a fixed penalty fine, she could not have done that because she never asked for them. Think about It... It order to serve a fixed penalty fine, you have to fill out the form and you have to obtain that from name and address on Docs. If they don't ask for docs, they can't do that can they ? That's why they have that procedure.
Further on, after carrying out a detailed Inspection of the car and finding nothing, as If she found anything, she'd have booked him for It, she then stands Infront of the bumper and refuses him to go on his way.
The law and police procedure Is that following a vehicle check, If there Is nothing, ie not a stolen car or no outstanding warrants, they must be allowed to go on their way. At the time she stood Infront of his bumper, he was not under arrest nor were there any outstanding warrants along with absolutely no reason to serve a fixed penalty fine... there-fore, the case Is, he was Illegally detained.
How ever much you want to sympathise with the officer... This Is what the defence lawyer is presenting the case on.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
I need to vent...
Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the officer in question, nor am I defending the driver, but as you have to admit, the only witness any of us have had so far is your testimony. Now, I'm in no way implying that you are not stating things as you saw them, but I'm pretty sure that if you were in court & the verdict was based purely on one side of the argument you'd be (quite rightly) pretty miffed, to put it mildy - at least, if the verdict wasn't in your favour. That is the whole principle of the Legal System - in theory, anyway.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
FourPart;1466003 wrote: Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the officer in question, nor am I defending the driver, but as you have to admit, the only witness any of us have had so far is your testimony. Now, I'm in no way implying that you are not stating things as you saw them, but I'm pretty sure that if you were in court & the verdict was based purely on one side of the argument you'd be (quite rightly) pretty miffed, to put it mildy - at least, if the verdict wasn't in your favour. That is the whole principle of the Legal System - in theory, anyway.
That's bollocks Sorry.
The legal system and the police are not entirely fair... they can and often are, extremely bias and unless you have ever been In that situation yourself, you can never comprehend what I am talking about.
After the young man was arrested when his bumper came Into contact with her leg, which by the way, my husband also witnessed, he was carted off In the van with the child and she set about taking statements, and the first she zoomed In on was the ******** shouting out racist comments to him because clearly he was going to side with the officer. Three of us, myself, my husband and another witness told the officer we wanted to make statements not just once but twice. She Ignored us. She took statements from the people who supported her. We got her collar number before she left because she made It clear she was not going to take our statements. In my police statement, It mentions this adding ' It appears the officer did not want statements unfavourable to her'... that's why we have kicked up.
During my conversations with the Inspector we discussed at length ' the power of suggestion'. This occurs when witness's who haven't actually seen much are told by an officer ' oh, did you see the way he drove the car at me ? So when they are making their statement, because they have been told he drove the car at them, an hour later, that's what they think they saw.
During my trial... Not one of the 8 youths who saw everything and gave evidence along with 4 Independant adult witness's who saw everything said anywhere In their polic statements that I was swearing. Not one !!! Some weeks later the officer goes Into shops looking for witness's for the prosecution and says to some daft old bat ' you must have heard her swearing at them ?'... oh yes, hang on, perhaps I did...Despite the woman giving a police statement to say she never left her shop and was behind plate glass throughout with no doors or windows open.
Then my Lawyer carries out his own Independant Investigation and what do you know? He finds a transcript of a 999 call from a member of the public asking for help for a woman they deemed In serious trouble surrounded by 50 youths... OK that number was an exaggeration but none the less, she called for help for me. At no time throughout two Interviews under caution was that 999 call ever presented by police or to my lawyer. When we went to trial and all statements and documents had to be handed over to the defence, the transcript was missing. It was buried. The what do you know ? He next finds an Independant adult witness who happened to be a supply teacher at the school. That witness was never Interviewed, they never took a statement from her and she was never presented to the defence. That's because at one point she broke through the gang and led away an extremely aggressive youth by the arm to get them out of my face. That witness was buried. That's why the Judge In his full summing up stated he was In no doubt the youths were abusive. Under cross examination, 4 of those youths were asked about the buried witness. All 4 youths testified that they had Informed my arresting officer and the bit where she led the youth away, when she took their statements and Informed her of who she was, When my arresting officer was asked under oath about this witness the youths spoke of, she claimed she had never heard of her.
And you think the police and the justice system Is always fair !!!!!
That's bollocks Sorry.
The legal system and the police are not entirely fair... they can and often are, extremely bias and unless you have ever been In that situation yourself, you can never comprehend what I am talking about.
After the young man was arrested when his bumper came Into contact with her leg, which by the way, my husband also witnessed, he was carted off In the van with the child and she set about taking statements, and the first she zoomed In on was the ******** shouting out racist comments to him because clearly he was going to side with the officer. Three of us, myself, my husband and another witness told the officer we wanted to make statements not just once but twice. She Ignored us. She took statements from the people who supported her. We got her collar number before she left because she made It clear she was not going to take our statements. In my police statement, It mentions this adding ' It appears the officer did not want statements unfavourable to her'... that's why we have kicked up.
During my conversations with the Inspector we discussed at length ' the power of suggestion'. This occurs when witness's who haven't actually seen much are told by an officer ' oh, did you see the way he drove the car at me ? So when they are making their statement, because they have been told he drove the car at them, an hour later, that's what they think they saw.
During my trial... Not one of the 8 youths who saw everything and gave evidence along with 4 Independant adult witness's who saw everything said anywhere In their polic statements that I was swearing. Not one !!! Some weeks later the officer goes Into shops looking for witness's for the prosecution and says to some daft old bat ' you must have heard her swearing at them ?'... oh yes, hang on, perhaps I did...Despite the woman giving a police statement to say she never left her shop and was behind plate glass throughout with no doors or windows open.
Then my Lawyer carries out his own Independant Investigation and what do you know? He finds a transcript of a 999 call from a member of the public asking for help for a woman they deemed In serious trouble surrounded by 50 youths... OK that number was an exaggeration but none the less, she called for help for me. At no time throughout two Interviews under caution was that 999 call ever presented by police or to my lawyer. When we went to trial and all statements and documents had to be handed over to the defence, the transcript was missing. It was buried. The what do you know ? He next finds an Independant adult witness who happened to be a supply teacher at the school. That witness was never Interviewed, they never took a statement from her and she was never presented to the defence. That's because at one point she broke through the gang and led away an extremely aggressive youth by the arm to get them out of my face. That witness was buried. That's why the Judge In his full summing up stated he was In no doubt the youths were abusive. Under cross examination, 4 of those youths were asked about the buried witness. All 4 youths testified that they had Informed my arresting officer and the bit where she led the youth away, when she took their statements and Informed her of who she was, When my arresting officer was asked under oath about this witness the youths spoke of, she claimed she had never heard of her.
And you think the police and the justice system Is always fair !!!!!
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
I need to vent...
There's no need to get on your high horse. I merely stated that if this were a court of law I would throw it out for lack of balanced evidence, regardless of whether it was the officer or the driver that was on trial.
The prosecution will have to provide their witnesses. The defence will provide theirs. To believe the whole case revolves purely on your opinion is egoistic & arrogant, as well as being from someone who is hardly unbiased towards Police Officers & arrest procedures.
No, I wasn't there. I only have your word for it. When it comes to court, the Jury won't have been there either, but they will have the advantage of hearing testimony from other witnesses as well, and not just your word on the matter. Believe it or not, the Legal System doesn't revolve around you.
The prosecution will have to provide their witnesses. The defence will provide theirs. To believe the whole case revolves purely on your opinion is egoistic & arrogant, as well as being from someone who is hardly unbiased towards Police Officers & arrest procedures.
No, I wasn't there. I only have your word for it. When it comes to court, the Jury won't have been there either, but they will have the advantage of hearing testimony from other witnesses as well, and not just your word on the matter. Believe it or not, the Legal System doesn't revolve around you.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
FourPart;1466007 wrote: There's no need to get on your high horse. I merely stated that if this were a court of law I would throw it out for lack of balanced evidence, regardless of whether it was the officer or the driver that was on trial.
The prosecution will have to provide their witnesses. The defence will provide theirs. To believe the whole case revolves purely on your opinion is egoistic & arrogant, as well as being from someone who is hardly unbiased towards Police Officers & arrest procedures.
No, I wasn't there. I only have your word for it. When it comes to court, the Jury won't have been there either, but they will have the advantage of hearing testimony from other witnesses as well, and not just your word on the matter. Believe it or not, the Legal System doesn't revolve around you. No I don't think the case revolves around me.
Once again, you are entirely missing the point.
When the officer took a statement from her now chief witness, I actually heard him saying to the officer as she was taking his statement on his stall. ' oh yeah, he was aggressive from the get go'...Why do you think my husband had the presence of mind the take photographs of the scene? For her chief witness to claim he could hear what the young man was saying to the officer at the very start of the Incident from Inside the car when his car was right In front of my face was Impossible, given the distance between that car and where he was standing. We have absolutely proved that with photographic evidence.
When I heard him say that, I walked down to him and called him a liar.
The officer left that field without taking one statement from 3 people who actually saw everything... not yards away like her chief witness. If we had not of gone to the police ourselves, that young man would be In court with only witness's for the prosecution and none for his defence.
The duty of a police officer Is to gather Information and that should be unbiased and fair ie presenting all witness's. Think about It... an officer's arrest sheet shows 50 arrests. 40 of those have been found not guilty. How long do you think It Is before they are demoted? If they present more witness's for defence than for the prosecution, why are they arresting them? When that defendant Is found not guilty. they are open to lawsuits of ' Malicious Arrest'... come on... use your brain matter here and think logically.
As for me being biased against the police, you are talking out of your backside and that Is libel,
The entire reason I offered the Inspector the opportunity to deal with the breaches of police procedure In that arrest, Internally, Is because the defence has an e mail I sent him stating I did not wish to hamper the officers career by going to the IPCC. So you get your facts right before you libel me. You know nothing. Every damn month we meet under the Safer South Glouc scheme with local officers and Councilor's. They call In my house for tea when they like. I have even defended local police before when a serious accusation was made against them. I have carried out public meetings with them to find ways of cutting petty crime In my area. I am In contact with them all the time. We are on first name terms, so you get your facts right before you write such assumption about me.
The prosecution will have to provide their witnesses. The defence will provide theirs. To believe the whole case revolves purely on your opinion is egoistic & arrogant, as well as being from someone who is hardly unbiased towards Police Officers & arrest procedures.
No, I wasn't there. I only have your word for it. When it comes to court, the Jury won't have been there either, but they will have the advantage of hearing testimony from other witnesses as well, and not just your word on the matter. Believe it or not, the Legal System doesn't revolve around you. No I don't think the case revolves around me.
Once again, you are entirely missing the point.
When the officer took a statement from her now chief witness, I actually heard him saying to the officer as she was taking his statement on his stall. ' oh yeah, he was aggressive from the get go'...Why do you think my husband had the presence of mind the take photographs of the scene? For her chief witness to claim he could hear what the young man was saying to the officer at the very start of the Incident from Inside the car when his car was right In front of my face was Impossible, given the distance between that car and where he was standing. We have absolutely proved that with photographic evidence.
When I heard him say that, I walked down to him and called him a liar.
The officer left that field without taking one statement from 3 people who actually saw everything... not yards away like her chief witness. If we had not of gone to the police ourselves, that young man would be In court with only witness's for the prosecution and none for his defence.
The duty of a police officer Is to gather Information and that should be unbiased and fair ie presenting all witness's. Think about It... an officer's arrest sheet shows 50 arrests. 40 of those have been found not guilty. How long do you think It Is before they are demoted? If they present more witness's for defence than for the prosecution, why are they arresting them? When that defendant Is found not guilty. they are open to lawsuits of ' Malicious Arrest'... come on... use your brain matter here and think logically.
As for me being biased against the police, you are talking out of your backside and that Is libel,
The entire reason I offered the Inspector the opportunity to deal with the breaches of police procedure In that arrest, Internally, Is because the defence has an e mail I sent him stating I did not wish to hamper the officers career by going to the IPCC. So you get your facts right before you libel me. You know nothing. Every damn month we meet under the Safer South Glouc scheme with local officers and Councilor's. They call In my house for tea when they like. I have even defended local police before when a serious accusation was made against them. I have carried out public meetings with them to find ways of cutting petty crime In my area. I am In contact with them all the time. We are on first name terms, so you get your facts right before you write such assumption about me.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
Actually Fourpart, I should apologise... I have been very acerbic with you tonight and have been rather harsh here.
Just don't get used to It
Just don't get used to It
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
I need to vent...
That's ok - I'll let you off this time.
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
I need to vent...
FourPart;1466018 wrote: That's ok - I'll let you off this time.
You should feel honoured, not many get an apology from Oscar :wah:
What we now know, is that this young man has no previous convictions, he is a father who has split with the mother and has access to his child at weekends and he also has a career. If this remained with the witness accounts that back up the prosecution only, that young mans life could be ruined. Don't think that this can ever not happen to you. One day, an officer may just take a dislike to you and you'll be in the same situation just to meet targets imposed on police officers by the government.
It is scandalous that the officer took statements for the prosecution from people yards away when we saw everything and heard every word yet were denied the chance to make statements.
My wife has the most detailed memory of anyone i have ever known in my life. Even the police and the lawyers say the details in her police statement are way beyond what others say and those details go a long way to proving that it is not as the officer portrays.
There is also the question of logic here. Oscar doesn't drink, she doesn't take drugs, she doesn't have mental health issue's, she doesn't have learning difficulties, she's reasonably educated and has been around the block a few times. Does any one really believe she would place her head and shoulders into the car of a complete stranger if the driver was extremely aggressive and about to get violent as the officer claims, not just once but twice? The second time, seconds before the officer claims he floored the accelerator? Do you think, i standing there watching, would allow my wife to do that? The witness for the officer states in his police statement that he saw her do this which bears out Oscar's statement. Had he of floored the accelerator, that officer would be under the car and he would have taken out several people milling about behind her. Would the officer then set about talking to bystanders if he'd driven the car at her? It stinks and it stinks to high heaven.
Oscar doesn't believe the case is all about her but the case does hinge on her because of her memory and that memory will be as sharp come March as it is now. Even the police inspector agree's that it just doesn't add up which is why he arranged to get her down to the police station for a statement in the first place.
We have a tendency in life to go blindly about our days believing that those in authority are there to do the best for us. That is a myth as we found out in Oscar's trial. The claim of mistaken identity was nothing more than lies to discredit her in the middle of gathering and mass support. We are not biased against the police. Our local police were the one's who acted in her best interests when after the trial, she was being harassed by the now ex arresting officer and they will continue to act in her best interests if that situation was ever to rear it's ugly head again. She was advised to go to the I.P.C.C. by her lawyer because he could prove the arresting officer gave " wrong information " under oath. The complaints for the arresting officer of misconduct in the courtroom actually came first from the security guard, court staff and the British Legion, disgusted with her behaviour. What would you do? Allow the next case to be tried on " wrong information"?
You should feel honoured, not many get an apology from Oscar :wah:
What we now know, is that this young man has no previous convictions, he is a father who has split with the mother and has access to his child at weekends and he also has a career. If this remained with the witness accounts that back up the prosecution only, that young mans life could be ruined. Don't think that this can ever not happen to you. One day, an officer may just take a dislike to you and you'll be in the same situation just to meet targets imposed on police officers by the government.
It is scandalous that the officer took statements for the prosecution from people yards away when we saw everything and heard every word yet were denied the chance to make statements.
My wife has the most detailed memory of anyone i have ever known in my life. Even the police and the lawyers say the details in her police statement are way beyond what others say and those details go a long way to proving that it is not as the officer portrays.
There is also the question of logic here. Oscar doesn't drink, she doesn't take drugs, she doesn't have mental health issue's, she doesn't have learning difficulties, she's reasonably educated and has been around the block a few times. Does any one really believe she would place her head and shoulders into the car of a complete stranger if the driver was extremely aggressive and about to get violent as the officer claims, not just once but twice? The second time, seconds before the officer claims he floored the accelerator? Do you think, i standing there watching, would allow my wife to do that? The witness for the officer states in his police statement that he saw her do this which bears out Oscar's statement. Had he of floored the accelerator, that officer would be under the car and he would have taken out several people milling about behind her. Would the officer then set about talking to bystanders if he'd driven the car at her? It stinks and it stinks to high heaven.
Oscar doesn't believe the case is all about her but the case does hinge on her because of her memory and that memory will be as sharp come March as it is now. Even the police inspector agree's that it just doesn't add up which is why he arranged to get her down to the police station for a statement in the first place.
We have a tendency in life to go blindly about our days believing that those in authority are there to do the best for us. That is a myth as we found out in Oscar's trial. The claim of mistaken identity was nothing more than lies to discredit her in the middle of gathering and mass support. We are not biased against the police. Our local police were the one's who acted in her best interests when after the trial, she was being harassed by the now ex arresting officer and they will continue to act in her best interests if that situation was ever to rear it's ugly head again. She was advised to go to the I.P.C.C. by her lawyer because he could prove the arresting officer gave " wrong information " under oath. The complaints for the arresting officer of misconduct in the courtroom actually came first from the security guard, court staff and the British Legion, disgusted with her behaviour. What would you do? Allow the next case to be tried on " wrong information"?
I need to vent...
Peter Lake;1466023 wrote: You should feel honoured, not many get an apology from Oscar :wah:
I am - and I might also say it is sincerely appreciated.
I am - and I might also say it is sincerely appreciated.
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
I need to vent...
FourPart;1466025 wrote: I am - and I might also say it is sincerely appreciated.
If you think the judicial and police system is fair where every side has an opportunity, then you're wrong but you really have to be in that situation before you understand that is not the case.
Weeks after Oscar was first arrested, she was arrested again by the same officer. When she walked out of the police station, it was already in the newspapers despite sub-judice law being in place to prevent anyone including police officers discussing a case before evidence is heard in court. On the second charge, she apparently punched a fourteen year old boy despite four independent adult witness's making no mention of this in their statements. I was there during the altercation and believe me, it never happened. I was there throughout the altercation but i was denied the chance to make a police statement and never approached because i would have helped the defence not the prosecution nor was another child who gave evidence that the youths were aggressive, not the other way around. When the defence team were handed the statement from this fourteen year old, it was clear that he wasn't there. His police statement had nothing remotely in common with the others. In the police station, Oscar was charged with criminal damage to the bike despite the officer being too bone idle to get off her backside and go and see the bike for herself. This is because it's assumed as in the case of this young man that you will take a quick caution down the nick and quickly add another notch to the officers arrest sheet. She was also charged with a public order offence. The officer then offered her a deal, plead guilty to the two common assaults and she'd drop the rest. Oscar was found not guilty of the assault on the fourteen year old and rightly so.
Around three weeks after the trial, i was leaving my mates shop and a witness approached me in the car park, one of the youths involved in the first assault. He tells me he's glad my wife was found not guilty on the second youth because he knows it didn't happen. I said, hang on but you gave evidence to say you were there and i know and my wife knows, you were not. He tells me the arresting officer told him he'd be in serious trouble with the police because she had three statements and needed four to arrest my wife. Incidental but that youth was the one the youth trashing the war memorial blamed for the damage. That youth testifying in court committed perjury for the common assault on the first youth and when he arrived in court that day, he was black and blue. He arrived with his mother and taking a wrong turn and instead of going to the private room walked into the reception where we all saw him. His injuries to his face were enough for our defence lawyer to call for a break so the judge could see his injuries on the video. You can only assume, there had been a falling out in the gang and he may have said he was not going to lie in court. Oscar did not pursue the boy for perjury as she could have done as it was evident he's been through a tough time with everything. Maybe now Fourpart, you can understand that in arrests and court cases, all is not how it appears to be. Evidence is presented to the C.P.S in order to get a prosecution and that will not happen if defence witness's outweigh prosecution witness's. I was just like you in that i believed the authorities were there in the best interests of the public. I got to sixty two years old before my eyes were opened. An arresting officer must and has to justify her arrest, if not she's open to unlawful arrest, false arrest or malicious arrest. Do you think she's then going to seek out witness's for the defence? Not on your nelly.
If you think the judicial and police system is fair where every side has an opportunity, then you're wrong but you really have to be in that situation before you understand that is not the case.
Weeks after Oscar was first arrested, she was arrested again by the same officer. When she walked out of the police station, it was already in the newspapers despite sub-judice law being in place to prevent anyone including police officers discussing a case before evidence is heard in court. On the second charge, she apparently punched a fourteen year old boy despite four independent adult witness's making no mention of this in their statements. I was there during the altercation and believe me, it never happened. I was there throughout the altercation but i was denied the chance to make a police statement and never approached because i would have helped the defence not the prosecution nor was another child who gave evidence that the youths were aggressive, not the other way around. When the defence team were handed the statement from this fourteen year old, it was clear that he wasn't there. His police statement had nothing remotely in common with the others. In the police station, Oscar was charged with criminal damage to the bike despite the officer being too bone idle to get off her backside and go and see the bike for herself. This is because it's assumed as in the case of this young man that you will take a quick caution down the nick and quickly add another notch to the officers arrest sheet. She was also charged with a public order offence. The officer then offered her a deal, plead guilty to the two common assaults and she'd drop the rest. Oscar was found not guilty of the assault on the fourteen year old and rightly so.
Around three weeks after the trial, i was leaving my mates shop and a witness approached me in the car park, one of the youths involved in the first assault. He tells me he's glad my wife was found not guilty on the second youth because he knows it didn't happen. I said, hang on but you gave evidence to say you were there and i know and my wife knows, you were not. He tells me the arresting officer told him he'd be in serious trouble with the police because she had three statements and needed four to arrest my wife. Incidental but that youth was the one the youth trashing the war memorial blamed for the damage. That youth testifying in court committed perjury for the common assault on the first youth and when he arrived in court that day, he was black and blue. He arrived with his mother and taking a wrong turn and instead of going to the private room walked into the reception where we all saw him. His injuries to his face were enough for our defence lawyer to call for a break so the judge could see his injuries on the video. You can only assume, there had been a falling out in the gang and he may have said he was not going to lie in court. Oscar did not pursue the boy for perjury as she could have done as it was evident he's been through a tough time with everything. Maybe now Fourpart, you can understand that in arrests and court cases, all is not how it appears to be. Evidence is presented to the C.P.S in order to get a prosecution and that will not happen if defence witness's outweigh prosecution witness's. I was just like you in that i believed the authorities were there in the best interests of the public. I got to sixty two years old before my eyes were opened. An arresting officer must and has to justify her arrest, if not she's open to unlawful arrest, false arrest or malicious arrest. Do you think she's then going to seek out witness's for the defence? Not on your nelly.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
To take my husbands post further... think the police don't fit up their defendant or attempt to sway the Judge ???
When I was first arrested, I was asked by my arresting officer If I had been known In any other name than Lake. Of course, as I was married, I gave my maiden name which was B****.
Just as the Judge was about to deliver his ruling, she swans Into the Courtroom c.ock a hoop a little like my dog's swagger when bagging a rabbit out on walks proudly showing off his quarry, and hands the Judge a piece of paper, one to the prosecution and one to my lawyer. On this piece of paper, It stated that apparently I had been convicted at the age of 19 on two counts of shop lifting and she believed that the Judge needed to take these 30 year old convictions Into consideration when deliberating.... only, there was one big snag...
When asked when being arrested If I had been known In any other name and I gave my maiden name as B**** what I didn't tell her was that I had married at 16 years old prior to my marriage to Peter. At the time of these so called shop lifting convictions, my name would not have been Lake or B****, It would have been F***.
As by the time of 19 years old, I had a mortgage, bank accounts, payroll cheques and a marriage certificate In the name of F***, It would have been nigh Impossible for me to be convicted twice In my maiden name of B*****.
Now... The arresting officer has produced similar In the case of this young man to show he was convicted of domestic abuse a year ago.. but... that conviction Is In a completely different name to his. When this has been questioned by his lawyer... the police said... oh he must have used an alias last year.
You would never believe this goes on unless you saw It for your own eyes.
I have to say, not all the police are like this..I know many damn fine officers.
When I was first arrested, I was asked by my arresting officer If I had been known In any other name than Lake. Of course, as I was married, I gave my maiden name which was B****.
Just as the Judge was about to deliver his ruling, she swans Into the Courtroom c.ock a hoop a little like my dog's swagger when bagging a rabbit out on walks proudly showing off his quarry, and hands the Judge a piece of paper, one to the prosecution and one to my lawyer. On this piece of paper, It stated that apparently I had been convicted at the age of 19 on two counts of shop lifting and she believed that the Judge needed to take these 30 year old convictions Into consideration when deliberating.... only, there was one big snag...
When asked when being arrested If I had been known In any other name and I gave my maiden name as B**** what I didn't tell her was that I had married at 16 years old prior to my marriage to Peter. At the time of these so called shop lifting convictions, my name would not have been Lake or B****, It would have been F***.
As by the time of 19 years old, I had a mortgage, bank accounts, payroll cheques and a marriage certificate In the name of F***, It would have been nigh Impossible for me to be convicted twice In my maiden name of B*****.
Now... The arresting officer has produced similar In the case of this young man to show he was convicted of domestic abuse a year ago.. but... that conviction Is In a completely different name to his. When this has been questioned by his lawyer... the police said... oh he must have used an alias last year.
You would never believe this goes on unless you saw It for your own eyes.
I have to say, not all the police are like this..I know many damn fine officers.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
I need to vent...
I have no doubt that there are the career hungry bad apples - just as there are in any profession, but my main point was a general one, inasmuch as no conviction or acquittal should ever be made on the basis of a single person's testimony. As to which testimony is most plausible, that's the job of the Jury to decide. He is obviously fortunate to have you as a witness on his side, but I imagine if it actually gets to court (and isn't withdrawn ahead of time), you can be pretty sure that the Prosecution will make the most out of your past. Whether they are allowed to or not, and the Defence raises an Objection, the seeds of doubt will already have been planted. Once something has been heard, it can't be unheard.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
FourPart;1466035 wrote: I have no doubt that there are the career hungry bad apples - just as there are in any profession, but my main point was a general one, inasmuch as no conviction or acquittal should ever be made on the basis of a single person's testimony. As to which testimony is most plausible, that's the job of the Jury to decide. He is obviously fortunate to have you as a witness on his side, but I imagine if it actually gets to court (and isn't withdrawn ahead of time), you can be pretty sure that the Prosecution will make the most out of your past. Whether they are allowed to or not, and the Defence raises an Objection, the seeds of doubt will already have been planted. Once something has been heard, it can't be unheard. You say that but It does happens. As I didn't take the deal, I was charged with a public order offence all based on the daft old bat who made a police statement that she heard me swearing at the youths from Inside a closed shop despite what? 12 youths and Independent witness's making no mention of me swearing. In between my arrest and trial, my Lawyer drove from Manchester to her shop and he photographed the shop showing beyond doubt that she could not even have seen the Incident at all from the angle of where she said she was standing Inside the shop let alone hear anything In mid December with all windows and doors shut.
So when he cross examined her on the stand, It was actually quite pathetic to see her umming and arrhhhing unable to explain It away. Finally she claimed she had actually stepped outside the shop to excuse herself.. yet... 12 witness's made no mention ever of seeing her In the road outside. She wasn't there, end of. I know that, she knows that.... When my lawyer showed that her evidence was now entirely different to that of which she gave to the arresting officer In her police statement, she flustered around trying to find an explanation, Yet, the Judge believed her, probably because of her age and she seemed respectable. Solely because of her, I was found guilty. My lawyer was fuming and wanted to appeal and he wanted to go after her for perjury. I didn't, solely because of her age and the fact the Judge discharged me... so sorry Fourpart but one person can make a hell of a difference to a case.
So when he cross examined her on the stand, It was actually quite pathetic to see her umming and arrhhhing unable to explain It away. Finally she claimed she had actually stepped outside the shop to excuse herself.. yet... 12 witness's made no mention ever of seeing her In the road outside. She wasn't there, end of. I know that, she knows that.... When my lawyer showed that her evidence was now entirely different to that of which she gave to the arresting officer In her police statement, she flustered around trying to find an explanation, Yet, the Judge believed her, probably because of her age and she seemed respectable. Solely because of her, I was found guilty. My lawyer was fuming and wanted to appeal and he wanted to go after her for perjury. I didn't, solely because of her age and the fact the Judge discharged me... so sorry Fourpart but one person can make a hell of a difference to a case.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
I need to vent...
FourPart;1466035 wrote: I have no doubt that there are the career hungry bad apples - just as there are in any profession, but my main point was a general one, inasmuch as no conviction or acquittal should ever be made on the basis of a single person's testimony. As to which testimony is most plausible, that's the job of the Jury to decide. He is obviously fortunate to have you as a witness on his side, but I imagine if it actually gets to court (and isn't withdrawn ahead of time), you can be pretty sure that the Prosecution will make the most out of your past. Whether they are allowed to or not, and the Defence raises an Objection, the seeds of doubt will already have been planted. Once something has been heard, it can't be unheard.
In Oscar's case we knew she'd be found guilty of the first common assault as she admitted grabbing the youth's collar in the first place. The damage to the bike was in question because the prosecution couldn't offer any evidence that the bike was not broken before Oscar threw it across the road. The second common assault just didn't happen nor did the public offence. Oscar was convicted because she told the truth unlike most in that trial. Having said all of that, the judge wasn't daft. I believe and still believe he was very astute when it came to his full summing up. He made statements that i believe were said just in order for the press gallery and to silence those who tried to discredit her with lies. He made a point of stating that there was no mistaken identity. He sympathised with her and even hinted at how political her trial had become. He stated she was of good character, i believe to dispel the dodgy previous so called convictions the arresting officer handed to him with glee. He appeared to know exactly what had gone on but had no choice to convict and not guilty on the second common assault. For me, finally, the best part of the trial came when the prosecution got up to speak on the compensation claim put in by the youth's parents.
He'd barely said two words when the judge held out a flat palm and said, no, not one penny. He gave Oscar a discharge and no fine. To this day i believe that judge knew exactly what had taken place as he seemed to indicate later when questioned by C.I.D. investigating the way the arresting officer handled her case.
In Oscar's case we knew she'd be found guilty of the first common assault as she admitted grabbing the youth's collar in the first place. The damage to the bike was in question because the prosecution couldn't offer any evidence that the bike was not broken before Oscar threw it across the road. The second common assault just didn't happen nor did the public offence. Oscar was convicted because she told the truth unlike most in that trial. Having said all of that, the judge wasn't daft. I believe and still believe he was very astute when it came to his full summing up. He made statements that i believe were said just in order for the press gallery and to silence those who tried to discredit her with lies. He made a point of stating that there was no mistaken identity. He sympathised with her and even hinted at how political her trial had become. He stated she was of good character, i believe to dispel the dodgy previous so called convictions the arresting officer handed to him with glee. He appeared to know exactly what had gone on but had no choice to convict and not guilty on the second common assault. For me, finally, the best part of the trial came when the prosecution got up to speak on the compensation claim put in by the youth's parents.
He'd barely said two words when the judge held out a flat palm and said, no, not one penny. He gave Oscar a discharge and no fine. To this day i believe that judge knew exactly what had taken place as he seemed to indicate later when questioned by C.I.D. investigating the way the arresting officer handled her case.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
To be fair to witness's In a trial, I do believe the power of suggestion plays a huge part.
Police officers are talking to potential witness's hours sometimes days after the event depending on how the defendant pleads. Once you refuse a police caution, the arresting officer then has to go and find witness's some times hours , even days later. When they approach that potential witness, some people are just susceptible to the power of suggestion. So an officer goes Into a shop and says to and old woman something along the lines of ' oh It was a dreadful scene where a woman attacked children' ' You must have heard her swearing'?
So she then thinks In all good faith that she's helping the officer In this terrible crime and then thinks she probably did hear swearing because that Is exactly what she's been told. In the case of the young man, witness's are asked ' did you see the way he tried to mow me down' and then because an officer has said he tried to mow her down, then It must be true.
Months later they find themselves up to their necks In a trial with an aggressive defence barrister being torn to pieces when all they did at the time was think they were helping the officer In some dastardly crime.
I can see how they end up In that situation. They don't set out to lie and they don't set out to maliciously convict an Innocent person. They find themselves In that quagmire quite Innocently.
Police officers are talking to potential witness's hours sometimes days after the event depending on how the defendant pleads. Once you refuse a police caution, the arresting officer then has to go and find witness's some times hours , even days later. When they approach that potential witness, some people are just susceptible to the power of suggestion. So an officer goes Into a shop and says to and old woman something along the lines of ' oh It was a dreadful scene where a woman attacked children' ' You must have heard her swearing'?
So she then thinks In all good faith that she's helping the officer In this terrible crime and then thinks she probably did hear swearing because that Is exactly what she's been told. In the case of the young man, witness's are asked ' did you see the way he tried to mow me down' and then because an officer has said he tried to mow her down, then It must be true.
Months later they find themselves up to their necks In a trial with an aggressive defence barrister being torn to pieces when all they did at the time was think they were helping the officer In some dastardly crime.
I can see how they end up In that situation. They don't set out to lie and they don't set out to maliciously convict an Innocent person. They find themselves In that quagmire quite Innocently.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
I need to vent...
Law enforcement is often arbitrary. I once had a truck turn right in front of me, from the left hand turning lane. I had no chance to react at all. The man admitted it was his fault, apologized to me profusely in front of the officer. Then the officer wrote him a ticket for failure to yield. Then he wrote one for me for "due care." I was pissed off! "Due care?!" I was going the speed limit. I had my seat belt on, and I was alert and not distracted. How could I have been doing my job better? The other man even admitted it was all his fault and I never had a chance! The officer just shrugged and walked off.
In court the judge threw the ticket out, but that was still enough for my insurance company to dodge paying for the repairs. It still pisses me off to this day.
In court the judge threw the ticket out, but that was still enough for my insurance company to dodge paying for the repairs. It still pisses me off to this day.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
Saint_;1466069 wrote: Law enforcement is often arbitrary. I once had a truck turn right in front of me, from the left hand turning lane. I had no chance to react at all. The man admitted it was his fault, apologized to me profusely in front of the officer. Then the officer wrote him a ticket for failure to yield. Then he wrote one for me for "due care." I was pissed off! "Due care?!" I was going the speed limit. I had my seat belt on, and I was alert and not distracted. How could I have been doing my job better? The other man even admitted it was all his fault and I never had a chance! The officer just shrugged and walked off.
In court the judge threw the ticket out, but that was still enough for my insurance company to dodge paying for the repairs. It still pisses me off to this day.
Double trouble for the police officer Saint !! I've heard similar happening here.
On a plus side, I was leaving Bath police Station very recently and there's a traffic Warden In the process of writing a fixed penalty fine. I had parked In a disabled bay. I'd never do that Intentionally but my mind was elsewhere. I was thinking ' oh god ' as I approached him. I said I was really sorry, I wasn't an Inconsiderate person but I was just so used to parking In disabled bays because my husband Is registered disabled. I was In a rush, running late for an appointment. Anyway, with that, he tore the ticket up and was really kind about It.
In court the judge threw the ticket out, but that was still enough for my insurance company to dodge paying for the repairs. It still pisses me off to this day.
Double trouble for the police officer Saint !! I've heard similar happening here.
On a plus side, I was leaving Bath police Station very recently and there's a traffic Warden In the process of writing a fixed penalty fine. I had parked In a disabled bay. I'd never do that Intentionally but my mind was elsewhere. I was thinking ' oh god ' as I approached him. I said I was really sorry, I wasn't an Inconsiderate person but I was just so used to parking In disabled bays because my husband Is registered disabled. I was In a rush, running late for an appointment. Anyway, with that, he tore the ticket up and was really kind about It.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
I need to vent...
That got me thinking on a slightly different tack, but still related.
Now that Tax Discs are no longer in use, due to everything being done virtually through the car registration database, don't you think that might be a more practical option for the Blue Badge system, as it would do away with the Black Market in the forged & stolen Blue Badges, plus it would save the driver from having to display it. In this way, just a quick check on the database would have confirmed that you were entitled to park there.
I know there are rules that only permit you to use the badge when the registered person is in the car, but perhaps there could be a different category for those where the car is registered exclusively to their personal use.
Just an idea.
Now that Tax Discs are no longer in use, due to everything being done virtually through the car registration database, don't you think that might be a more practical option for the Blue Badge system, as it would do away with the Black Market in the forged & stolen Blue Badges, plus it would save the driver from having to display it. In this way, just a quick check on the database would have confirmed that you were entitled to park there.
I know there are rules that only permit you to use the badge when the registered person is in the car, but perhaps there could be a different category for those where the car is registered exclusively to their personal use.
Just an idea.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I need to vent...
With blue badge holders, yes, many get stolen but the people who abuse them get caught because of the savvy of the traffic warden. They are clued up enough. So If they see a car parked up with a blue badge, they can just radio In for date of birth and If It comes back that the badge holder Is 70 years old and then they see a 30 year old coming back to the car, they know It's either nicked or someone's using their Mother's
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon