Can the (Met) police ever change?

spen666

Active Member
Yes, that's the whole point of telling the story. Such a test has no basis in law, as I'm sure you know.

Absolutely it does.

He was arrested and charged for threatening behaviour towards the female motorist. His attitude to the police officer at the scene provided support for that belief that he had been threatening to the motorist.

Remember to arrest, you only need reasonable belief that the offence has occurred, not absolute proof of guilt.

If he had behaved more reasonably at the scene, then the officer would not have felt the need to detain him

The whole article is biased and slanted, from the headline saying he was arrested for being a pedestrian. He was not, he was arrested upon suspicion of threatening behaviour towards a female.

An article with the title "I was arrested upon suspicion of threatening a female" - which is correct statement of fact, doesn't cast him in the same light.

The article is always going to be biased and slanted, because it is an account written by an aggrieved party. It is his version of events and is obviously biased towards his self entitled view of what happened.

Any version of any story told by one party to the events is by definition biased as its their version of what happened.
 

shep

Legendary Member
It's the same old story, 'female BMW driver', not 'Transit van full of builders'.
 

Rusty Nails

Upright Member
In other words 'the blokes a c*ck and got what he deserved '.

Do you believe that some police might just be c*cks in uniform but that, even if they are, people arrested or questioned by them should just stay schtum no matter how wrong the officer is?

I know half a dozen retired police officers at our club and, while most of them are fine, one of them is definitely a c*ck who got away with a lot in his career when making assumptions about what people deserved.
 

Rusty Nails

Upright Member
Absolutely it does.

He was arrested and charged for threatening behaviour towards the female motorist. His attitude to the police officer at the scene provided support for that belief that he had been threatening to the motorist.

Remember to arrest, you only need reasonable belief that the offence has occurred, not absolute proof of guilt.

If he had behaved more reasonably at the scene, then the officer would not have felt the need to detain him

The whole article is biased and slanted, from the headline saying he was arrested for being a pedestrian. He was not, he was arrested upon suspicion of threatening behaviour towards a female.

An article with the title "I was arrested upon suspicion of threatening a female" - which is correct statement of fact, doesn't cast him in the same light.

The article is always going to be biased and slanted, because it is an account written by an aggrieved party. It is his version of events and is obviously biased towards his self entitled view of what happened.

Any version of any story told by one party to the events is by definition biased as its their version of what happened.

Both sides of the story came out in court. The case was dismissed and some officers will receive guidance. Now why would that be if this bloke was just acting "self-entitled"?
 

spen666

Active Member
Both sides of the story came out in court. The case was dismissed and some officers will receive guidance. Now why would that be if this bloke was just acting "self-entitled"?

Erm no it didn't

The case was discontinued by the CPS, so the court never held a trial

No idea where you get the claim that some officers will receive guidance comes from. The 3 links provided by Glasgow Cyclist refer to 2 different people. The reference to the man charged is written before 1st appearance at court, so make no reference to the officers receiving guidance

The other 2 links relate to a female and do not relate to this case.

The fact an arrest does not lead to a conviction is not the basis for words of guidance being provided to a police officer.
The test for arresting someone is wholly different to the test for someone being convicted. It happens regularly that people are arrested, even charged and later not convicted. It does not mean that anything wrong has been done by the police.


The author of that original article seems to have difficulties with telling the truth without lying to embellish his sense of self entitlement

1. He was not arrested for being a pedestrian despite the headline to his blog, He was arrested on suspicion of threatening behaviour towards a female - perfectly lawful reason for an arrest incidentally

2. He claims Legal Aid is effectively not available in the Magistrates Court - this again is untrue. Legal #aid is available, subject to the appropriate tests. To paraphrase, you are unlikely to get legal aid if there is no realistic risk of imprisonment or a complex point of law to be determined. Neither of which applied here. A realistic risk of imprisonment does not mean theoretically imprisonment is available for an offence.

If this person had shown a different attitude at the scene he would not have been arrested.
 

bobzmyunkle

Regular
If this person had shown a different attitude at the scene he would not have been arrested.
Nothing to question about that statement.
 

icowden

Veteran
2. He claims Legal Aid is effectively not available in the Magistrates Court - this again is untrue. Legal #aid is available, subject to the appropriate tests. To paraphrase, you are unlikely to get legal aid if there is no realistic risk of imprisonment or a complex point of law to be determined. Neither of which applied here. A realistic risk of imprisonment does not mean theoretically imprisonment is available for an offence.
So, in other words it is effectively not available in the Magistrates Court, as 95% of cases there will not be about imprisonment or complex points of law, not least because Magistrates have no legal training.

If this person had shown a different attitude at the scene he would not have been arrested.
Possibly. If you take the opinion out of his opinion piece he is factually accurate that the Police sided with a motorist who was driving illegally in a pedestrianised zone, and then sought to defend themselves by claiming signing was inadequate (which it clearly isn't).

I agree some of his piece is daft:-
Rather than doing the sensible thing and turning her car around, she choses to get back in her car and drive right up until she is 12 inches away from me.
This would not be possible at that point in Exchange street plus she would then be going the wrong way up a one way street as at the point he was at, the road was one way.

But other items are concerning - not least his illegal detention without charge.
 
Last edited:

Rusty Nails

Upright Member
The case was discontinued by the CPS, so the court never held a trial

No idea where you get the claim that some officers will receive guidance comes from. The 3 links provided by Glasgow Cyclist refer to 2 different people. The reference to the man charged is written before 1st appearance at court, so make no reference to the officers receiving guidance
I apologise for not fully following the links in the post.

When video evidence was released the case was discontinued by the CPS.

Its very clear from reading that story that the writer was arrested for "failing the attitude test" and is telling a rather slanted version of events.

The sense of self entitlement is very high.


without lying to embellish his sense of self entitlement

If this person had shown a different attitude at the scene he would not have been arrested

The issue you seem to be most interested in is that his attitude/self-entitlement are the most important elements of this case, whereas many others seem to see no problem with asking possibly awkward questions of the police on the scene about genuine issues of law and the accusations.

I have no issues with the general, difficult job the police do, except there are undoubtedly some over-zealous or officious officers, and unless the actions taken by the 'accused' towards them or witnesses are violent, abusive or physically resisting arrest, then their attitude to the officer should have no bearing on the actions of a professional police officer.
 

icowden

Veteran
IThe issue you seem to be most interested in is that his attitude/self-entitlement are the most important elements of this case, whereas many others seem to see no problem with asking possibly awkward questions of the police on the scene about genuine issues of law and the accusations.
Exactly, so unless he called the copper a c*nt and threatened to punch his lights out, I don't think they had reason to arrest him. Asking for information you are legally entitled to and possibly being a bit difficult, cross and obtuse, is not AFAIK an arrestable offence or reason for detention.
 

multitool

Über Member
Quite a lot of police bootlicking from Spen666 and his lackeys.

I'm with Rusty Balls on this. It's not the police's job to police the attitude of the public to the police. My experience of officers is broadly the same as his.. most are decent people, some are ars3holes. The capacity of the ars3holes to damage the reputation of the police, alienate the public, and undermine community relations is significant.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom