C5. Drivers side headlight not working cops stopped me

[Xaccers]

I've no problem with being pulled over, heck I welcome it if they've spotted something wrong that I've missed, it's the un-called for impolite attitude which the Police themselves should not tollerate which sometimes occurs, normally when the constable can't find anything wrong and won't (a) admit that there is nothing wrong or (b) be happy that there's at least one faultless car on the road.
If I have a problem with an item I've bought in a shop and get "attitude" from a staff member because they've had a tough day, it is unacceptable.
Likewise if a constable has had a hard day of people being abusive to them, it is still unacceptable for them to pull someone over and give them "attitude"
If they are that unable to keep their cool should they really be behind the wheel? Similarly if they're on crowd control and can't keep their cool they shouldn't be there. As colleagues they should be looking out for each other and not in a "I'll say I saw nothing" way but in a "Jeff's more worked up than I am, I'll check this driver and let him cool for a bit"
It might also be an idea to remind each other during crowd control with cameras about that if you're going to use someone's foul language to arrest them and get them out of the way it might be best not to use the same language
I'm pretty certain if someone was "up in my face" and I laid hands on them first, I'd be in trouble with the law (heck I've been in trouble with the law when I was the one being attacked and suffered a greater penalty).
Of course if they're confronted by some lippy git who has a go, use the law against them, arrest them if needs be (even if it's to shock them and you unarrest them shortly after), or as Richard says use a prohibition notice. It's a form of self defence, if a constable is being harrassed or being subjected to rudeness it is just as unacceptable as the police treating a memeber of public that way.

When I got home tonight Cassy's blower went hurricane, and it reminded me of when I had trouble with the relay mod the first autumn I spent in MK.
Needing the engine running to test the blower I pulled off the road on the way to Newport Pagnell and set to work in the passenger footwell.
Being cold outside the windows steamed up within minutes.
I nearly pooped myself when a wPC tapped on the window to see what was going on with her PC partner.
They were both cheery, I showed my driving license when asked, explained what I was up to and that as the engine needed to be running to get the fan going I didn't want to disturb my neighbours.
They went away grinning thinking I was a Citroen loon that "obviously know what you're doing" and hopefully it brightened up their night

[myglaren]

The police seem to be out in force these past few weeks. No doubt due to the start of the month checking for car tax and drink drivers around Christmas time.

The road past where I work has been littered with police cars this week, twice they pulled over a car into our carpark.

We need be on our best behaviours! And keep the car in check, of course.

Seems a bit harsh to make you walk home, as said, I suspect you were ok to pick it up in daylight and take it to a garage? C5Is have their foglights inside the headlights (not low in the bumper like most cars). Ive used them twice when Ive had a headlight out, just to get me home where I changed the bulb.

Hardly seen any police presence around here for ages and I live half a mile from the police station - big one too.
Helicopter sometimes wakes me up in the early hours though.
Rarely see any police vehicles at all except the one that comes to visit one of my our directors, calls in for a coffee as they are mates.

[DickieG]

As you say Xac no complaints with what you say, the only thing I'd add to the mix there is that whilst this might come as a surprise to some, there are people who tell fibs to the Police and unfortunately the fibbers aren't always wearing a face mask and a stripy shirt with a swag bag over their shoulder so a number of Q+A's are required during which the Police Officer has to make a judgement of whether they can believe the answers given, so don't be surprised if the officer isn't totally believing of your answers which can be very frustrating for the person stopped.

The alternative is totally gullible Cops unable to detect a gas leak with a lighted match.

[boristhespie]

Deleted:! What's the point?

As a professional I have to adhere to a process of professional reflective practice. I have also on a number of occassions had to prove professional comPetence which lasts four days at a time. It's all part of professional improvement. Nothing to be afraid off.

My profession is not precious. We know that like other professions there are those who are great, good or downright s**t. We accept that we are no different to other walks of life. There are bad shop assistants and doctors and joiners just as there are good ones.

The sad thing is when we have a profession in such an powerful and special position it is dangerous to find them so unopen to the same self criticism as every other position of work.

It is without question that anytime anyone criticises a policeman there is an inevitable need of others to become defensive as a way of protecting the profession. Only a profession so wholly arrogant in it's outlook could deny any element of criticism.

[Xaccers]

If you have nothing to hide .... there is nothing to worry about.

Oh yes there is -- the very fact it is demanded of you to prove
to such self-appointed overlords that you "have nothing to hide".

And even more so, the fact that many people seem to accept the situation
as perfectly normal, without noticing that it is part of a one-way ratcheting
towards "presumed guilty unless you can prove otherwise", and the Public
being accountable to the State (or rather, its ruling elite) at all times.

What a load of old tosh, too much listening to rumours and not enough factual information to back up your theory there Norlander. If you had any idea of how the law has changed over the years you'd know that the opposite was true as getting a conviction these days is much harder than it's ever been as there are far more get out clauses these days, go back to the 80's and it was far easier to prove criminal cases, trust me as I know having been there and done it.

The only area where the law has been tightened significantly is making financial seizures from the proceeds of crime and in anti-terrorism, what right minded person would object to that?

What is the problem with being asked to prove that you have the right to be in possession of an article and if so, what do you suggest as an alternative taking into account the need to prevent and detect crime?

Richard, you know my situation with Shani, I had nothing to hide so therefore nothing to worry about, after all I was the one who was attacked, yet I was punished more for defending myself against somene punching me than that person who was 4 hours of sobering up over twice the drink drive limit and freely admitted she attacked me.
With hindsight I'd have denied defending myself (or shoved her down the stairs and claimed she tripped when I had the chance rather than moving her out of harms way whilst avoiding blows )
Sure if it had gone to court I have no doubt now that the magistrates would have thrown it out, but of course the police don't have to take you to court to punish you.
They can be Judge, jury and executioner.
They can also deny people justice simply by refusing to act on a crime.
Sure it is more difficult to get a conviction for a criminal who knows they broke the law, knows the system and knows to get a solicitor, but it's still just as easy, if not easier with targets to hit, to convict an innocent person who doesn't know the system, doesn't know what questions to ask (it's not in the police's interest for you to know otherwise they've wasted their time arresting you), and don't know what you can refuse.

Thankfully (although I seem to have had more than my fair share!) duff coppers are not the norm, and the pleasant ones I've had dealings with have been fantastic.

As you say Xac no complaints with what you say, the only thing I'd add to the mix there is that whilst this might come as a surprise to some, there are people who tell fibs to the Police and unfortunately the fibbers aren't always wearing a face mask and a stripy shirt with a swag bag over their shoulder so a number of Q+A's are required during which the Police Officer has to make a judgement of whether they can believe the answers given, so don't be surprised if the officer isn't totally believing of your answers which can be very frustrating for the person stopped.

The alternative is totally gullible Cops unable to detect a gas leak with a lighted match.

Some of the guys on those Road Wars type programs do it really well, especially when as you say the information they're being given feels a bit iffy. I don't think I've ever seen one of those they've stopped actually being charged with giving misinformation (normally it's minor compared with the crimes they're trying to hide from).

[sonoramicommando]

the fact of the matter is, some police officers seem to enjoy power tripping. others, on the other hand, are most well behaved.
as far as im concerned, they shouldn't be dicks when they are doing their job - in fact, being courteous to public should be a part of their job descriptions. (of course, that goes both ways - i dont endorse ftp attitude by some people. a side story - this guys is a retard. http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/news/ ... t/1227308/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) - if i behaved like some power tripping cops at work, i'd be given the boot in a second.
the thing about the riot and lack of action by the cops? the funny thing is the rioters were not "presumed" to be carrying out criminal activities - they were involved in a crime, plain and simple. compare that to a routine traffic stop.
the occupy movement all around the world, we have some going on here - a city council issues a trespass notice to have a bunch of protesters (i mean, squatters) in a public space to be removed. what happens next? the police refuses and considers its legal positions.

[Norlander]

What is the problem with being asked to prove that you have the right to be in possession of an article and if so, what do you suggest as an alternative taking into account the need to prevent and detect crime?

You appear to make an assumption that everyone is "guilty", as a starting point.

What is the problem with being asked to prove that you have the right to be in possession of an article

What is missing in that question/statement, is any hint of the asker being expected to offer -- or even have -- any reasonable grounds for suspicion that the (whatever it is) item is illegitimately held.

[DickieG]

Boris calm down, I have merely pointed out that there is another side to war stories about Police and gave a few examples in order to offer some balance to the subject, if you aren't happy with that so be it, I'm over it.

In the further examples you give if you are still interested in reading I can offer some further balance and explanation to your arguments. Yes I'll be playing devils advocate and you may not like it but what I'll state is cold hard facts about the reality of modern Policing.

Firstly how many Police Officers do you think are on duty in Arbroath at night? I'd bet on no more than four. How far is the next major town of say Aberdeen or Dundee and how many are on duty in each of those towns? Maybe up to ten if you are lucky, then factor in how large the area is that they cover outside the town and as you can see they are rather thinly spread out.

Oh and don't forget to factor in that some of those Officers will be dealing with prisoners so are not available to answer calls, so the fact that they took 30 minutes to arrive to the first incident doesn't come as a surprise to me, in such a large area as they are covering around your way they may well have come from quite some distance, so what if the station is 300 meters away, were they in there or out patrolling elsewhere or maybe they were the only unit available and were dealing with another incident elsewhere when the call was made, have you considered that?

Incident 1, It does appear strange from your description that the two suspects weren't arrested at the time but there could be other factors you are not aware of that may have come into their decision making, for instance if they were the only free unit left on duty, the incident has finished and the suspects are known to the victim so no problems with identification. If they were arrested at the time they may well have been under the influence which means that they cannot be interviewed until they are sober so not much to be gained by tying up the only free unit with arrests. The fact that no follow up statement was taken suggests to me that maybe the victim wasn't willing to pursue the matter, if that did happen then without a victim there is no case to investigate. There was no need for Police to take your details as they already had them from your phone call.

Incident 2, "One small midget boy cop" arrives to deal with 40 yobbo's, hmm, now why was that? Could he have been the only one available? What on earth did you expect him to do? Become another victim of assault? I refer you back to the numbers game, there is not an endless pot of Police Officers waiting to deal with every incident and with the present cut backs there are now considerably fewer. Chief Constables certainly don't want their Officer numbers to be so low but they can only employ as many as the Government allow. No doubt the the yobs were happy exchanging insults with your wife as she wasn't a threat to them, however had the "Midget Cop" tried to lay his hands on one of them I can all but guarantee he'd have got his head kicked in so he did the sensible thing by standing back, annoying as it is but unless more Police are employed that'll remain the case.

Incident 3, No-one responded to numerous calls, number game again pure and simple, there isn't a magic box that can be opened every time someone dials 999.

I got fed up being the only one to respond to violent incidents which were miles away knowing that should I need back-up it was unlikely to arrive and add into the mix that yobbos know full well you are on your own so are all to willing to have a go at you, anyone fancy doing that job? Please step forward, go on one of you must want to do it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[DickieG]

You appear to make an assumption that everyone is "guilty", as a starting point.

That assumption was made by yourself pure and simple, not me.

If I stopped someone and questioned them about their possession of an article I would have done it for a reason, location, time of day, behaviour of the suspect object being carried etc. They gave me grounds to suspect that a crime may have been committed so I was duty bound to investigate by asking questions, what else do you suggest I should have done?

[Norlander]

No different; it's perfectly reasonable.
But there is a significant difference between what you've writen there, and a statement of....

.... asked to prove that you have the right to be in possession of an article

as though all of the general public should be obliged to explain themselves to Police
(or to others in authority) all of the time.
Ie, a situation along lines of the population existing to serve the State,
instead of the State existing to serve the population.

Please don't get the wrong impression from the above, I'm no knee-jerk liberal type --
in fact, I've come to reckon that maybe ten to fifteen percent of most human population
groupings are a menace to everyone else (btw, nothing to do with race, culture or religion)
and do need to be clobbered accordingly.

[DickieG]

No different; it's perfectly reasonable.
But there is a significant difference between what you've writen there, and a statement of....

.... asked to prove that you have the right to be in possession of an article

as though all of the general public should be obliged to explain themselves to Police
(or to others in authority) all of the time.
Ie, a situation along lines of the population existing to serve the State,
instead of the State existing to serve the population.

I'd say you are getting into nitpicking there, the result is still the same, are you legitimately in possession of said article? It could be related to potential theft of an item, an offensive weapon, drugs etc. I'd still be asking pertinent questions in order to verify the situation and after all is said and done police don't stop people for their own benefit, it is done in order to detect and prevent crime, pure and simple.

This brings us back to that same issue of being damned if you do and damned if you don't, you appear to argue that Police do too much stopping whereas others complain of Police not doing enough "What are Police doing about gun, knife crime, street robbery, burglary and drugs?"

[Xaccers]

Here's an example which I hope will show what Richard is getting at:
It's a warm summer's night, 3 in the morning, the police spot a bloke dressed in a black hoodie and wearing gloves, he's got a bag.

I don't think it would be unreasonable for a PC to suspect the bloke of going equipped for burglary, and so to ask him a few questions and to just check in the bag.
Now it depends on how the PC asks though, if he just starts ordering the bloke around then that's just not on and is likely to result in an agressive response from the bloke.
Explaining why the PC believes the search is warrented, and if nothing of concern is found, thanking the bloke for his cooperation and apologising for the inconvenience shouldn't result in any lip, likewise explaining what if it was someone else walking along who was actually intending to break into houses, wouldn't the bloke prefer the PC stopped them?
I don't think that's unreasonable.

[myglaren]

asked to prove that you have the right to be in possession of an article

Was precisely where the problem started with my encounter with a very unpleasant detective.

I was 19 and had recently bought an Hasselblad camera, something that very few people would recognise although he evidently did and was aware of the cost of them.

Had he asked in a civil manner there would have been no problem but he was arrogant in the extreme and arrested me on suspicion of having stolen it ( I probably didn't look as though I could afford it).

I went along with this but if he had actually asked the right question, I happened to be stood outside the shop I had bought it from and the vendor would have verified that.

Instead I was booked in as a potential criminal, locked in a cell and made to wait almost an hour for an interview.
He came down to the cell with a sergeant I happened to be acquainted with and was about to begin the interview when I asked the sergeant to see if Mr. Harrison was in.
He looked very uncomfortable but went off to see and returned a few moments with him.

"Hullo Stephen"! were his opening words, "What are you doing here"?

The detective looked as though he was going to crap himself.

"Hello Superintendent, your detective here has arrested me on suspicion of having stolen this camera equipment"!

That cut the interview very short indeed and the detective was shifted a couple of weeks later.
I stayed and had a cup of tea with the superintendent and explained what had gone down.
Superintendent Harrison, a fantastic bloke, was a friend of the family and very well aware of my photographic interests and the cameras I owned.

The guy could have saved himself a whole heap of trouble had he just been civil and asked if it were my camera and where I had bought it.

[Xaccers]

Steve, if that happened today your DNA would forever be on the criminal database despite being innocent.

[DickieG]

Steve you sound as if you were acting as Agent Provocateur there, you are standing right outside the shop you have bought it from who can verify your possession of the camera yet you were quite content to keep that quiet and be arrested, how very odd, I can only be left to wonder how much you knowing the Superintendent had to do with you making that decision.

I wonder what you'd have thought about the arrogant Detective if he'd used the same tactics on a thief who'd just stolen your Hasselblad?