Stopped again.

[brambles]

You've used the words "usually" and "generally" in your responses. I could easily apply both those terms to lawyers based on my daily interactions with them....

And yet I see that you do not disagree with my assessment? On my desk right now in advance of tomorrow morning, I have one case in which the police refer to a car not being insured rather than the driver and made no investigation as to whether or not she was insured, and another where they have entered a house for no reason, searched it in the absence of the householder, decided that a man passing must live there and detained and interviewed him wthout giving him the required access to a solicitor beforehand. Utterly random and both happen to perfectly illustrate the points I made earlier.
As I understand it as an English police officer, a lot of the "lawyers" you will deal with on a day to day basis, are in fact, not. Paralegals and clerks are not lawyers. Of course there are stupid lawyers, however, I know of several myself. The difference is that they are not roaming the country detaining and arresting members of the public, and if you are an honest man then you will recognise the daily occurrence of "Oi, you! Empty your pockets" being written up as " As I approached the accused from the southern side of the street, he appeared to be under the influence of some substance, staggering, and with eyes dilated. I stopped and engaged him in conversation but could not detect any smell of alcohol, and he appeared nervous and sweaty and was trying to conceal something so I decided to detain him for a search in terms of Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 ...... "

 

[redbranchwarrior]

And yet I see that you do not disagree with my assessment?

If you re-read the last line of my post you will see that I have. Oh I do not disagree that there are some, maybe quite a few stupid/incompetent and no doubt corrupt police officers in this country. Given that there is somewhere in the region of 128.000 police officers in England and Wales, to do so would be to ignore the law of averages. I do however refute the idea that this is a general condition or that it is usual. If that were truly the case then surely no one would ever be convicted....despite the best efforts of some of your learned brethren....

Yes, we do frequently have legal advisers/paralegals/part qualified solicitors in addition to solicitors acting for suspects in custody. But I ensure I know which they are when dealing with them. This fact does not affect my earlier conclusion.

I do consider myself an honest man, and can say hand on heart that I have never seen anyone searched without reasonable grounds for doing so, other than when S.44 TACT was in play (thankfully no longer!!). Having said that I work in one of the busiest boroughs in London with one of the highest instances of drugs use and dealing. While i certainly cannot claim my fellow officers are without fault, search powers is something they tend to be very good with.

I have yet to find a profession whose members are totally without flaw. While I accept that those who hold the office of constable should be held to a higher standard, I do find it tiresome when such lazy generalisations are bandied about......

 

[Robbi]

There speaks the voice of experience. ( Brambles )

 

[Wayne]

I have been stopped several times by the police whilst transporting my tools. last time I had at least a dozen axes on the back seat various knives in boxes and assorted bushcraft kit. The officers did the usual tyre checks and waited for my details to come through on the computer. Not once did they mention the mini arsenal they were being very polite and so was I. Eventually the curiosity got the better of me and i asked when are you going to mention the axes and knives.

all they said was we were wondering and smiled. "im sure you have a good reason for carrying that many" I told them what I did for a living and that I was coming back from the woods and if we waited a few more minutes a school minibus would probably go by and wave. All they asked was that in furture I didnt just put then on the back seat in case I had to break hard as they were worried i might chop myself.

The only officious jobs worth I have encountered was a British Transport Police officer manning a mobile metal detector. I stopped told him what was in my rucksack and why. He wanted to confiscate my weapons. I polite affirmed he wasn't and that he needed a better understanding of the law as I was a law abiding citizen going to my place of work. I gave him the number of the charity in London I was heading to etc but he still wouldn't allow me to proceed with my weapons. I wouldn't allow him to touch my bag. Eventually I assertively asked him to contact a senior officer for clarification of the law as I would be putting in a formal complaint and suing the officer for loss of earnings and anything else my company legal advisor could come up with. He reluctantly got on the radio back to base abd I could hear his conversation with the duty officer. I spoke to him on the officers radio explained my situation that I had approached the officer told him what was in my bag and why and where I was heading and at no time had I been abusive of threatening and the officer wanted to steal my tools and I would need a complaints form. A few seconds later the first officer gave a very unhappy grunting apology and waved me on my way.

Since then I have never used public transport when going to work in central London.

 

[wandering1]

aFortunately I've never had any problem with the "law" I work in "trades grounds maintenance" so I have an assortment of tools in my.tool back including several axes and hatchets machetes all of which are quite legal for me.to carry as they are tools of my trade,
The thing here is actually having reasonable justification for carrying such items.. if one was walking around a shopping centre with a machete up a sleeve one got stopped. You have to "prove"that you have a justifiable reason for possessing said item " pardon me, officer I'm a grounds contracter, I've been contracted to remove thorny brambles from fire escape...meanwhile the officer only has to prove that he had reasonable doubt to stop said contractor....
My biggest worry is when I'm commuting to a weekend in the woods and I have my axe hatchet chete and branch saw hidden in my rucksack, of coarse if I got stopped and an officer demanded a search of my pack I'd be polite and upfront "excuse me, officer I understand you are a public servant doing your job. However before you proceed to search my pack, I'm on my way to spend a few days in a private woodland and may require these tools..... and maybe he might allow on my way.....

 

[brambles]

If you re-read the last line of my post you will see that I have.

No, that refers to your position on police generally doing a good job. I have'nt disagreed with that, I'm not a "police hating ultra liberal type", I have a lot of very good friends in the police. one of my best friends and my son's godfather is a police officer and I have acted for police officers and their family members. But you did not address my assessment of the legal issues I referred to. It's not so much a dishonesty situation as a training and procedural one. Let's be clear I work in Scotland and you in England, so they are very different systems despite the apparent similarities , but I constantly see police officers acting in a manner which they believe to be OK which is simply unlawful, and over the last few years the courts here have fallen over themselves to excuse "irregularities" at the expense of members of the public.

 

[Wayne]

In my experience working with law enforcement professionals around the world. Be polite and friendly and you will be halfway there. If your rude or an arrogant so and so then the officer is going to try their hardest to make your day miserable. When working or travelling in the middle east that can be for very long time. Do you research and ask yourself is the sharp really necessary?

 

[redbranchwarrior]

No, that refers to your position on police generally doing a good job. I have'nt disagreed with that, I'm not a "police hating ultra liberal type", I have a lot of very good friends in the police. one of my best friends and my son's godfather is a police officer and I have acted for police officers and their family members. But you did not address my assessment of the legal issues I referred to. It's not so much a dishonesty situation as a training and procedural one. Let's be clear I work in Scotland and you in England, so they are very different systems despite the apparent similarities , but I constantly see police officers acting in a manner which they believe to be OK which is simply unlawful, and over the last few years the courts here have fallen over themselves to excuse "irregularities" at the expense of members of the public.

I don't agree, but lets not get into a war on semantics lol. I agree there are some serious issues with the standards of training and even recruitment, certainly in english forces. Im not sure if its the same in Scotland but the removal of residential training centres has led to a decline in the standards of training and has changed the ethos somewhat, not for the better in my opinion. I may just be lucky, we deal with a very high volume of crime where I work so officers get considerable and varied experience very quickly. Thats not to say there aren't some absolute clangers, but broadly speaking the standard of coppering I think is high.

As to the courts, well as we both know thats a whole other issue altogether lol. Im sure we could both tell some horror stories over the campfire...

 

[Lister]

At least you didn't let on about the tarps, shovels, bags of quicklime and dead bodies in the back

 

[Laurentius]

The reputation is well founded. For this reason.

The peeps in the bad areas run round in gangs/crews whatever and each has its own territory. A few weeks ago someone interviewed some of them. They asked them if they signed on, they said no because the jobcentre was in another gangs territory and if they went there they would be shot, simple as. That is why crime is high 80% of the people who commit the crimes cannot get any money any other way. Its the same with jobs etc cant work because cant get to work without the very real chance of someone having a pop at them. Its gang culture and unavoidable if you live there unfortunately. Some other cities are the same just maybe not as infamous/notorious.

I wonder if I submitted an application to join the local gang whether they would reject me on the grounds that I am too old and respectable looking (failure to wear a hoodie, and trackies) Would the jobcentre then sanction me for failing to take steps to improve my situation?

 

[Laurentius]

Whoa there boy,
i am not a Brummie but i do live relatively close, don't go dissing them mate, i work with a load of them and they are alright. Plus there are alot of Brummies who post on this site you might just upset !!

btw, whats the difference between a plane full of Brummies going to spain and the plane ? the plane stops whining after it lands. lol

From Coventry myself, but have been mistaken for a Brummie before by Southerners who don't know the difference. Mind you what gets on my wick is everytime I tell anyone where I am from I get the usual "sent to Coventry" banter.

 

[MrEd]

another things is if a copper asks you if you have any weapons on you and you, say, have a leatherman in your pocket, dont say yes, say no, no weapons but i do have a multitool with a knife on it in my pocket.

Was told that by a copper

 

[Lister]

you're hardly going to say yes if the question is worded with the word "weapons" are you? "sharp objects" more than likely but weapons? hell even if i had a Mora on me I wouldn't answer "Yes" if they asked if i had "weapons" on me

 

[brambles]

It is deliberately worded that way to attempt to get people to admit that an item is a weapon rather than something innocent - just as when police use their powers under S.172 of the Road Traffic Act to ask registered keepers to identify drivers they ask the question as " I require you to identify the driver of the vehicle when it was driven dangerously on the 8 February .. " rather than " I require you to identify the driver of the vehicle when it was driven on the 8 February .."

 

[petrochemicals]

The slander and prejudice on this thread is terrible.

[VIDEO=youtube;U8Kum8OUTuk]http://youtube.com/watch?v=U8Kum8OUTuk[/VIDEO]

 

[brambles]

slander and prejudice

 

[petrochemicals]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a5/a5fd9f50473ea78ab4a5668771803996dfaebe931facffc060a9c530337dc7e7.jpg

But it's two words though

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...4320DBC854C9104607C1CE874AC3F59F3F92&first=25[VIDEO=youtube;BVupRsbx8UM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVupRsbx8UM&app=desktop[/VIDEO]

 

[Wayland]

So, this weekend. It's 6am and I'm driving at a steady 70 down the middle lane of a quiet section of the M69 when a Range Rover comes bombing up right behind me and starts flashing his headlights at me. By now I can see that it is a Police car and I think, " Here we go.."

I pull over into the slow lane and he carries on past me. When he's gone a couple of hundred meters further on I pull back into the middle lane and a few seconds later he puts on his blue lights and slows down, signalling for me to pull over.

I wait in the van and wind my window down as he walks back to me and says "Can you step out of the vehicle please?".

"That would imply that I thought you had a good reason to stop me" I reply.

"You were driving without due care and attention"

"That's interesting officer, what makes you think that?"

"You don't just drive along in the middle lane unless you are overtaking."

"Well, if you were paying attention you would have seen that we passed a sign streaming us for the next junction. My attention however, was drawn to the fact that you were driving aggressively and speeding without your blue lights on."

By now his mate has arrived at the van too. PC One huffs and pointedly starts looking at my battered looking van. "Let's have a look at the vehicle then".

"Knock yourself out," I reply, "It's just passed it's MOT, it's taxed, I'm insured and fully qualified to drive it."

He looks at his mate who nods, presumably having completed his checks before walking over.

"Your attitude however is starting to feel a bit like harassment and I would like you to apologise for stopping me without good reason, I'll disregard your speeding and then we can both go on about our business".

By now, I'm expecting the "What's in the back of the vehicle?" question but remarkably it doesn't come. To my surprise, PC Two looks at his younger colleague and says, "That's alright sir, you can carry on now." and starts to walk back towards the Police car, followed shortly after by a red faced PC One.

I don't know if you can tell but I'm getting a bit fed up with this kind of nonsense...

 

[sandbender]

"...I don't know if you can tell but I'm getting a bit fed up with this kind of nonsense....."

Yes, I can tell. Understandable though.

 

[GGTBod]

I have to say Wayland i am with you i got so sick of being stopped and searched in my youth that i can't help but ooze dry wit and snide remarks anytime i am stopped these days, this mostly stems from i know these days there is nothing i could be done for and i definitely never have anything in my pockets they could screw me over for, the last time i was stopped was about a year ago at 3am, me and my buddy were night mountain biking and he got a thorn in his tyre so we are sitting dressed in full mtb padded gear with helmets with lights on and hydropack backpacks on under a street lamp and he is fixing a puncture with the wheel off the bike and bits scattered about the floor, cop drives past spins around and pulls up rolling down his window and says "" What you two doing?" My reply "We're roasting a chicken" this is followed by a full PID check of us both and the serial numbers on our bikes and a thorough search of all our pockets and belongings. One day i'll learn to keep my gob shut