I need to vent...

[Oscar Namechange]

Arggggggghhhhhhhhh:-5:-5:-5:-5

last night I gathered up all the old crap my husband gathers to do a car boot sale this morning.

First of all, what Is the last thing you'd expect to come strolling by past your stall?

Yep, a Meerkat... In the middle of Bath, a real Meerkat saunters by.

Then my entire morning was taken up with what both of us and another stall holder believe to be the worst case of racism from a police officer we have ever witnessed to a young black man.

Hang on, I hear Fourpart cry, but your against Immigration.... Yep, but I like to think I am fair,

Before going Into details, I challenged this officer because I had an Inkling of the law surrounding the events that unfolded but I waited until I got home, spoke to one of my boys In blue and they confirmed I was right and advised me to Immediately phone the IPCC which I have.

Seriously folks, we know our police force has been accussed of being racist before but do you believe they are? Be honest. I am so appalled at what we saw today that I need to vent....

[Snowfire]

So fill us in then. What went down ?

[Oscar Namechange]

Snowfire;1462722 wrote: So fill us in then. What went down ? Just loading up the pics of the Meerkat and I will..

[Snooz]

Is "meercat" another one of those crazy British slang words for ladybits or is this an actual meercat?

[FourPart]

Anyone who is racist is bad enough, but with a Public Servant it's even worse, and when the Public Servant is a member of the Police, I would agree that disciplinary procedures be instigated. This is why members of the BNP are barred from joining the Police.

[Oscar Namechange]

I'll try to cut this short.

The boot sale Is heaving and hundreds of stalls. The organisers have made a right dogs dinner out of the parking Issue. So you have buyers trying to leave but getting stuck because there's nowhere to turn around and the aisles between the stalls Is just the width of one car,

This Is where my Initial hunch re: the law came In.... I believed that as the field was private land, the road traffic act did not apply.

Halfway through, a WPC arrives and goes to a stall behind me. Someone's called the police because someone ran over her foot. The woman states she doesn't want to press charges. WPC starts to walk away.

Meanwhile the aisle right In front of my stall Is gridlocked with about 6 cars trying to exit. The car right Infront of me has the young black man In the drivers seat and a small child In the passenger seat wearing a seat belt. Now remember he's on private land at this point. The WPC appeared to make a bee line for his car, Ignoring others. She leans her head right In the open passenger window and tells him the child should be In a booster seat, which up to 12 years old, Is correct.

He's calm, he's talking quietly, he's not swearing and the officer starts threatening him with arrest. All he repeats over and over again quite calmly Is ' Arrest me for what? What am I suppossed to have done', can you please just let me leave? Over and over.

Now, legally, she could have waited until he exited the field and then nicked him on the road but she didn't.

I also had a feeling that when any police officer calls In for a vehicle check, they must state the reason to the driver providing he has no papers on him and there Is a good reason for asking for that check. She did neither. At no time did she ask him for his doco's nor give him a reason for using her radio for the vehicle check.

As he's just saying' what have I done' quite calmly, she walks behind the car, and In front of me and this other stall holder, calls In ' I have a very aggressive male here and need a vechile check etc etc

While she was still on the radio, I said to her, ' He's not been aggressive at all, you are the one being aggressive to him' I was Ignored. I said again ' how can you possibly say that,???

So If an officer must give a reason for asking for a vehicle check, and his car being In excellent condition, no lights out etc, we believe she used the aggressive male bit for cause to call In.

She continues to what seemed to be goading him, threatening arrest rather aggressively to the point I asked for her collar number, so did another stall holder.

Bear In mind there's a young child In the car. I walked round the stall, leant In the window and told to just keep calm.

He's still saying ' please just let me leave.... with that, she stands Infront of the car and refuses to let him pass. This Is on private land. It was stand off for a couple of minutes and finally he got upset. put his head out the window and said ' It's because I'm black ain't It?

Then some tattoo'd knobs on other stalls further down start shouting at him ' yeah go on, play the race card'

I then went to his car and asked If he'd like me to take the child away from the arena.

The police officer by now Is moving back and forth the front of the car to talk to the Idiots while she's blocking him, so the driver tries to get the car around her to leave.

I saw It.... his bumper touched her leg.

She then calls for back up and arrests him for assault by vehicle on a police officer.

They let him lock his car up but wouldn't let him move It so It's still blocking the aisle.

Peter then tells her how dumb that was as what If someone needs an ambulance. Her reply? As god Is my witness, ' Then I'll smash Into his car and move It'

The police take him and child off In the van and she sets about taking witness statements from other stall holders. The one further down claims the driver was aggressive from the start so I told him he could not have possibly seen or heard what we did from where he was.

She spent all morning getting statements and even took statements from people who were behind his car and could not possibly have seen the front of the car make contact with her. But the bastards were all making statements saying he revved the car up and drove at her.

Bear In mind, only 30 seconds earlier, this man was calm with a small child next to him and 30 seconds later she's taking witness statements saying he tried to mow her down.

I need a cuppa... rest later.

[Oscar Namechange]

Meanwhile,,, here's my hand petting the Meerkat who wandered past.

Attached files

[FourPart]

Was she wearing a Body-Cam, as is becoming common procedure these days?

[Snowfire]

Its a strange one. While I accept she was the aggressive one and clearly goaded him into a response, it would seem to me that it wouldnt be unreasonable for her to assume that, as he was leaving the private land, any issue with restraints for the child should be taken care of there and then. Was he going to stop at the gate, get out and strap her in ?

I would have intervened as you did though. There is a responsibility that comes with that uniform. Police officers of that kind do no good to the service as a whole and I hope she gets her wrist slapped for it

[Oscar Namechange]

FourPart;1462731 wrote: Was she wearing a Body-Cam, as is becoming common procedure these days?


Not that I could see....

Anyway she spends around two hours taking witness statements and by now I was livid because I could hear other stall holders saying he revved up and drove forward at her.... Did he bollocks !!!

So we and the other stall holder waited and waited for her to get to us... nope, she walks straight past us and goes to the next lot of people.

Myself and the other stall holder marched up to her and asked why she'd swerved us when It all happened right Infront of us and we were the only people to see and hear everything.

So she took my details and said she'd contact me to make a statement.

On she went, getting as many statements as she could but never came back to me or the other stall holder.

Then she left... so basically what she's got Is about 6 witness statements saying he deliberately revved the car up and drove at her and no other statements to say otherwise.

We believe she only took statements from people who were favourable to her.

So when I got home, I spoke to one of our boys In blue, told him everything and he told me to ring In the complaint which I have.

[Oscar Namechange]

Snowfire;1462732 wrote: Its a strange one. While I accept she was the aggressive one and clearly goaded him into a response, it would seem to me that it wouldnt be unreasonable for her to assume that, as he was leaving the private land, any issue with restraints for the child should be taken care of there and then. Was he going to stop at the gate, get out and strap her in ?

I would have intervened as you did though. There is a responsibility that comes with that uniform. Police officers of that kind do no good to the service as a whole and I hope she gets her wrist slapped for it


Thing Is, he could have parked up In the field, the private land and rang a mate with a child seat to come and collect the child. Then, legally, he's not left the private land and the road traffic act does not apply.

So I'm wondering as he was on private land, by standing In front of his car, she did In fact Illegally detain him...

Before I left, I left a note with our phone number for him when he finally gets his car back. I hope he does.

[FourPart]

If it was private land it might even be asked if she had a right to be there without a Warrant without being invited by the land owner.

[Oscar Namechange]

FourPart;1462736 wrote: If it was private land it might even be asked if she had a right to be there without a Warrant without being invited by the land owner.


I've just had a very long conversation with an Inspector who rang me... blimey that was quick !!!

He says my testament contradicts the other witness's and throws another angle of things. So I have them contacting me tomorrow to make an appointment to make formal statements.

I agreed I heard the police officer say ' Do not move the car' when she stood In front of It but we discussed the drivers frame of mind when the Officer first approached. I was adamant that contrary to the lying bastards who gave statements saying he was aggressive from the get go, he was not In the slightest. He asked me to judge his mood before he moved the car forward and I am adamant, he was upset not aggressive... This may have some bearing on It.

Meanwhile he;s been charged with assaulting a police officer by vehicle and looks like a section 5.

eta.... the Inspector asked me If I believed he had become upset solely due to the way he was spoken to by the officer and I have said Yes, absolutely.

[FourPart]

This is the sort of thing where the Body-Cams would come in useful. They can benefit both the accused & the officer alike. Proof of innocence or guilt where witness testimony is in conflict.

However, you must admit that (Party Political stuff aside), with your record you're not exactly going to come across as an unbiased witness.

[Oscar Namechange]

FourPart;1462740 wrote: This is the sort of thing where the Body-Cams would come in useful. They can benefit both the accused & the officer alike. Proof of innocence or guilt where witness testimony is in conflict.

However, you must admit that (Party Political stuff aside), with your record you're not exactly going to come across as an unbiased witness.


Like I said to the Inspector... I have nothing to gain here.. I have never seen this young black man In my life before and I've never seen the other stall holders In my life before. What would I gain ? I just know what me, my hubby and the other stallholder saw and heard and It's not what was said In those statements from others.

[Snowfire]

FourPart;1462740 wrote: This is the sort of thing where the Body-Cams would come in useful. They can benefit both the accused & the officer alike. Proof of innocence or guilt where witness testimony is in conflict.

However, you must admit that (Party Political stuff aside), with your record you're not exactly going to come across as an unbiased witness.


I think she has been extremely fair and given that the inspector rang her, suggests otherwise. Its clear when you analyse who has been asked for a statement and who hasnt, where the truth might lie

Oscar is probably on first name terms with the upper echelon of the local constabulary.

[FourPart]

Can you imagine the Court Case, though.

"Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury. You have heard 6 corroborating testimonies from independent witnesses, and one from another who is known to have had previous issues with the Police..."

[Oscar Namechange]

FourPart;1462745 wrote: Can you imagine the Court Case, though.

"Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury. You have heard 6 corroborating testimonies from independent witnesses, and one from another who is known to have had previous issues with the Police..."


Correction... Following my trial and subsequent IPCC enquiry, twas my defence Lawyer who had Issue's with the police and advised me accordingly.

So ner

Anyway, what you're overlooking Is that my husband Is also a witness and the other stall holder assured us he was making a complaint as soon as he got home also. Apparently, my version coincides with the black guys version... so that's potentially 4 witness statements saying otherwise.

[Oscar Namechange]

Update....

A terribly nice police Officer has just phoned again to explain to me why the black guy was charged... not that they have to tell me anything, I don't know him from Adam but he wanted to clarify the law re private land.

Yes, the fields are private land where normally the road traffic act would not apply... then he went on a bit about ' unadopted land and public usage etc etc.

But, here's the big If....

If the owner of that private land opens the land up to the public accessable from a highway as It was In this case, and the owner of the land Is charging the public to use his land, then the road traffic act does apply on that private land.

It still doesn't excuse the rest.

Oh and one of the things I said to the Inspector was :

The second time I put my head through his window was to ask him If he'd like me to take his little girl to sit In my car. His words were: ' That's reallly very kind of you, but I'm Ok, I'm cool, I'm calm, I'll be alright.'

30 seconds later, alllegedly he revved up his car full throttle, hit the accelerator In an attempt to mow down a police officer.

I told him that It just didn't gel. That had absolutely bo logic to It. He actually agreed.

Then I told the Inspector... think about It... If the Bellend's statement Is true and he had Indeed revved the car full throttle and then hit the accelerator with a person 2 Inches away from his bumper, I'd say he'd have killed her, not touched her leg... hmmm

I told him also that the body language of the small child showed no fear, no upset, no tears.... so do you not think If her Daddy was being aggressive and shouting, her bosy language would have been different?

[Peter Lake]

I saw It all and I would ask this question, if the officer had been dealing with an elderly man in his car, would her attitude have been different to a senior or even if it was a female driving the car?

I do believe her attitude would have been different so it raises a very ugly question.

As Oscar said, when i pointed out that leaving the car there, it could hinder an ambulance or people wanting to leave in a hurry, the response i would have expected from a police officer, would have been along the lines of, don't worry, should that happen, we will clear a way through. Instead she said she'd smash her way into his car and move it herself. To me, such a response showed aggression from her.

For this reason, with the guy now on his way to the cells, i photographed his car from every angle in order that should he find it damaged upon his return, we could prove it was intact at the time of arrest.

Oscar omitted the part where she went down to the guy on the stall further down who gave a statement gilding the lily and told him that no way could he have heard what was being said by the driver at the onset and called him a f---ing liar and a wanker at the top of her voice.

She's so ladylike my mrs, bless her.

[Snowfire]

Oscar is, surely, too demure to use colourful language

[Patsy Warnick]

I need to vent...!

I'm irritated too.

Who new buttons would be so difficult to find?

I went to a couple Fabric store - OMG busy - they were packed.

When I found a button of interest they didn't have enough of that kind.

and expensive OMG - I could've bought a steak for the price of 2- 3 buttons.

I use to be able to go to garage sales and find jars of buttons that I could incorporate into my project - I haven't found buttons at a sale in a long time. I ask the sellers do you have buttons - no.

I went to 3 different stores this morning - I'm irritated - and I'm at a stand still on my project until I find @ 15 - 20 buttons of the same.

I had to vent - my hubby is busy watching the 49ers football game & is not really interested in my irritating mood..:wah: he laughs at me:yh_rotfl

I feel better now - Thank You

Patsy

[Bruv]

Come in handy come the forthcoming election...............a cynical voice keeps telling me.

[Oscar Namechange]

Trust me Bruv, It has nothing to do with the forthcoming election, I'm not scoring Brownie points here.

Believe It or not, I am a fair person who despises breach of police proceedure for cause to threaten arrest or elaborate a thin case In court. I also despise overt racism that gives my Party the very Image we have been handed by media. I also despise abuse of power that feeds the very sense of persecution that many young blacks In the country feel and this, I believe was a text book case of why they feel that way. How can any political Party ask for Integration and assimilation while this sort of malarky goes on ?

I know what we saw and heard... and It wasn't right.

Update.... We have appointments at the police Station tomorrow afternoon to give formal statements as witness's for the defence.

I have made It quite clear that should I witness that bellend who could not have seen and heard the get go, stand up In court and testify under oath that the young man was aggressive from the start, I will submit a formal complaint to the police that he has committed perjury...that Is how strongly we feel about him especially given It was him who started the cat calling of ' yeah go on, play the race card' !! which could have enflamed the situation and the young man staying calm despite this.

eta.... by the way... you know what It's like once you get home and calm down, things start coming to you.?

Peter remembered last night that when the police officer stood In front of his car and said she wasn't letting him leave. another woman came up behind the car holding up a mobile phone and said to Peter that she was filming It, saying ' I'm getting this copper on film'.... not ' I'm getting this aggressive man on film..... yeah, bet the officer never took her statement either. !!!

[Peter Lake]

Bruv;1462798 wrote: Come in handy come the forthcoming election...............a cynical voice keeps telling me.


Are you actually thinking here that Oscar is so racist, tows party line so vehemently, is so election campaign minded that she'd exploit the situation just in order to bolster her campaign in May ?

Or could it just be the simple fact, that of all the people the officer could have abused her power next to, it just sadly for her, happened to be the one person who knows more about breaches of police procedure, the stop and search law and the I.P.C.C than anyone else can shake a stick at?

Could it just be, that your perception of anyone connected to the far right would just be devious enough to seize an election bonus rather then genuinely care that she and i had witnessed an injustice ?

In reply to Fourpart, do you not think that the fact that the inspector got back to her so quickly, spent an hour on the phone with her, arranged for us to make formal police statements completely conradicting the officer's statement, that they do not take her very seriously indeed and actually regard her as a reliable, unbiased, fair witness despite the party she stands for? If you do, then you have no comprehension of how my wife is actually viewed in our community.

The facts are, Oscar did not get involved at the very start when the officer was talking to him about the child car seat. At that point, she had no reason to get involved, it was none business until the officer walked to the back of the car to look at the plate and called in for a vehicle check stating " i have an extremely aggressive black male at a car boot" when we saw no such aggression nor did we see her ask for his doco's and that is a breach of police procedure while being untrue. That is the point Oscar came in as did another chap who saw it.

[Bruv]

Oscar Namechange;1462801 wrote: Trust me Bruv, It has nothing to do with the forthcoming election, I'm not scoring Brownie points here.


Honestly it would be a shame to waste the situation now it has happened.

To paraphrase your comment the other day, it's refreshing to see a member of the BNP admitting why there is a rift between the Law and black youth. If you extrapolate from there the riots following a minor incident become almost reasonable, and why all the races pussy foot around each other, wary to offend.....either way.

We have a long way to go.........unfortunately.



Peter Lake;1462805 wrote: Are you actually thinking here that Oscar is so racist, tows party line so vehemently, is so election campaign minded that she'd exploit the situation just in order to bolster her campaign in May ?


Why so defensive ? Did I mention racist ?

Ditto what I said above.... how we all tend to pussy foot around racism, afraid to be thought of as racist, then afraid to maybe cause offence by saying something racist such as *cough* blackboard.....even that little pause......when in the company of a black person.....that moment you second think about mentioning a potentially racist word.....Tan shoes.....*shock horror*..........maybe it is just me......but I don't think so.

Yes we have a long way to go.

I am glad you have sorted out the laptop sharing situation.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1462807 wrote: Honestly it would be a shame to waste the situation now it has happened.

To paraphrase your comment the other day, it's refreshing to see a member of the BNP admitting why there is a rift between the Law and black youth. If you extrapolate from there the riots following a minor incident become almost reasonable, and why all the races pussy foot around each other, wary to offend.....either way.

We have a long way to go.........unfortunately.





Why so defensive ? Did I mention racist ?

Ditto what I said above.... how we all tend to pussy foot around racism, afraid to be thought of as racist, then afraid to maybe cause offence by saying something racist such as *cough* blackboard.....even that little pause......when in the company of a black person.....that moment you second think about mentioning a potentially racist word.....Tan shoes.....*shock horror*..........maybe it is just me......but I don't think so.

Yes we have a long way to go.

I am glad you have sorted out the laptop sharing situation.


To clarify the laptop situation seeing as how you raised It. Peter has serious degeneration of the spine. He usually uses his own at his desk but late at night, his back hurts too much so joins me on the sofa and shares mine. We are often running several pages at a time and that's where the confusion sets In from me.

Now, for the record,I have absolutely no Intention of exploiting the situation come May and the thought never occurred to me before you mentioned It. I would do the same had It been a traveler, chinese man or British. Also for the record, I have witnessed other arrests and have never got Involved as I did not see such blatant abuse of police procedure.

As Peter pointed out, she could have called In ' I have an agressive man' not ' aggressive black man' What does that tell you ? He was right... what did the ' black have to do with It ?

There's no denying that In black communities there Is a sense of victimisation. For sure, some play the race card, but this Is the very type of behaviour that feeds that feeling.

[Peter Lake]

I'd like to hear more on the global shortage of buttons.

[FourPart]

Oscar Namechange;1462752 wrote:

If the owner of that private land opens the land up to the public accessable from a highway as It was In this case, and the owner of the land Is charging the public to use his land, then the road traffic act does apply on that private land.


That's it - time to raid Silverstone & Brands Hatch. They're certainly in contravention of the Highways Laws - Clearly in breach of the 70mph National Limit.

[Oscar Namechange]

FourPart;1462815 wrote: That's it - time to raid Silverstone & Brands Hatch. They're certainly in contravention of the Highways Laws - Clearly in breach of the 70mph National Limit.


You have a point!!

My getting the hump over this Is not so much about the police officer because obviously this must go on, but the bellend she's now got as the chief witness for the prosecution... the liar !!!

You suggesting here that I may be a biased witness because of my previous experience with the police Is not the case. You have to remember, that when I and my lawyer accussed my arresting officer of perjury, she was Indeed found to have given ' wrong evidence' under oath' along with misconduct In the courtroom, so I was vindicated.

Unless you've ever been In that situation, It's difficult to comprehend.

My concern In all this Is this.... For all I know, the young man may have a history of violence and agression. We don't know that, but It does not ho hand In hand with him being guilty as hell.

It's the duty of the officer to gather Information to present to the CPS. They then decide to charge or not depending on the likely hood of getting a conviction.

So by only getting witness's favourable to the police, the CPS are only going to see ' He revved up his car In an attempt to mow down a police officer. Had she of taken statements from myself, my husband and the other stall holder behind me, the CPS would have a far more balanced view and decide not to persue him. That has not been allowed here.

Then It goes to trial... without our evidence, should this young man have previous violent convictions, It's the difference between a slap on the wrist and him possibly getting 6 months based on the evidence given... I don't think that's right. He could well be violent, but It's fact that he wasn't on that day.

Similar happened to me during my trial. Due to one single old woman, I was charged with a section 5 because she made a police statement that she had heard me swearing at the youths. This was absolutely Impossible.... same as the bellend on the stall further down from me who couldn't have heard him.

Imagine a row of just 6 shops. The 10 minute Incident happened at the second to last shop outside. The manageress of that shop made a police statement that throughout the entire time, I was facing her. Down the other end, Is the takeaway and the owner testified for the defence that I had my back to him throughout. This old woman Is from the shop next to the takeway so I have my back to her. Every single witness Including the youths admitted In court I was completely surrounded by approx 25 male youths shouting their heads off. Yet, this old woman made a statement that from Inside her shop and behind plate glass, she heard me swearing despite that shop being yards away from the Incident. My lawyer went to the scene and took photographs to show that the angle from her shop, It would have been Impossible for her to see anything at all let alone me or the youths.

My husband gave evidence that when he came to my rescue he noticed the old woman Inside the shop craning her neck to get a look. My defence witness also testified she was behind the glass Inside the shop at the time we left the scene.

So my lawyer cross examines her. He asks her how she could possibly have heard me swearing when she had never heard my voice before In her life, was beind plate glass and several yards away without clear vision of the events. It was actually pitiful to watch, seeing the old bint stumbling for an explanation. Then he told her of other testamonies that stated no-one mentioned her being there In their statements, how did she explain that? Again she was floundering. Eventually, she said, oh I did go outside just for a look'... He then produced her police statement and asked her to show where she had said that. Of course, she couldn't. So her asked her why she'd changed her story and again she floundered but eventually she said, she didn't want the police officer to think she was being nosey when she gave her statement. During the break, my lawyer said, she's lying through her back teeth. We decided that had she not have been so old, we'd have proved perjury.

So why do people do this.? I believe It's some kind of misguided belief that they are helping the police and see nothing wrong. But, this sort of thing could happen to you one day or anyone else. With this case, It's also about the power of suggestion. So the bellend Is shouting out to other stall holders while he's being arrested ' Did you see that? He revved the car up to mow her down'.... two hours later, they are then giving statements saying he tried to mow her down. It's wrong and one day, It could happen to you and you'll thank god for an unbiased witness stating the facts.

Like my old woman, power of suggestion and a misguided sense of helping the police Is not fact.

[Bruv]

Police forces across the country will today sign up to a crackdown on the misuse of stop and search powers that have caused tension between officers and the black community.

About time ?

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1462843 wrote: Police forces across the country will today sign up to a crackdown on the misuse of stop and search powers that have caused tension between officers and the black community.

About time ?


That Is very Interesting... Thank you !!!

This Is my whole Issue.

The officer from what we could see had absolutely no reason to call In for a vehicle check.

So as we said from the beginning, her only excuse for doing so was that he was aggresive and In accordance with your article, about to get violent. That was completely false.

The mere fact, I felt safe enough to put my my head and shoulders Into the open window to talk to him, not just once but twice and the 2nd time, approx 30 seconds before she alleges he revved the car to the max and floored It to mow her down, just doesn't gel.

So by your article, her behaviour was based on her saying he was aggressive and using the excuse that he could get violent was absolute nonsense..



Well, here's a turn up.

We're just getting ready to leave to make our statements at the police station and my husband tells me he's printing off the photographs for the police. What photographs I ask. The one's I took when she first stopped him. That was news to me !!!!

But joy of joy.... It proves beyond any doubt the the Officers cheif witness was wayyyyy too far away to hear what was being said from Inside the car and proves he's a lying bellend.

[Bruv]

Oscar Namechange;1462846 wrote:

We're just getting ready to leave to make our statements at the police station and my husband tells me he's printing off the photographs for the police. What photographs I ask. The one's I took when she first stopped him. That was news to me !!!!




And you are supposed to have marvelous recall ?

Whatever you do.......don't admit you didn't know about the photos.

I am winding you up.......for the record.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1462853 wrote: And you are supposed to have marvelous recall ?

Whatever you do.......don't admit you didn't know about the photos.

I am winding you up.......for the record.


Just got home... what a marathon !!!!

As It unfolded, I had my eyes firmly fixed on the officer and the young man... just didn't realise Peter was snapping away behind me.

So, Update.... All I can say Is this.... following my hour long chat to the Inspector yesterday and what I told him, although the young man was charged with assaulting a police officer, they decided to wait until I had made my statement before presenting to the CPS because what I said threw a whold new light on everything.

After making the detailed statement and the officer comending me on my attention to detail, It was decided that The Sargeant Is to review the entire charges against the young man. Now It may not even reach the CPS which of course Is good news for the young man who has pleaded not guilty. The officer taking my statement told me It was him who Interviewed the young man under caution and told me although certainly he was resentful, he was not aggressive In the slightest which Is not what the arresting officer and her chief witness have stated.

Can't really go Into detail much more as It could still go to trial. However, our photographs have been taken by the police as evidence that the chief witness was not In a position to make the statement he has.

The best bit ? Having to give my personal details.... I was commended on my honesty.... so... what do you think was the reaction Fourpart when It came out which political Party I work for ? :wah::wah:

eta.... Now I've been told the Inspector Is ringing me again tomorrow to discuss with me whether we persue through the IPCC against the arresting officer...

[911]

I think what you have done is laudable. Standing up to authorities is one thing but, to continue is something most people would not do. They may register their complaint but to continue with it would be "too much trouble". Not you!

In your post #6, you stated she said "aggressive male" but in post #27 you stated she said "aggressive black male". Your attention to detail is great but this is an important detail and not an important detail. Let me explain. Should he have hurt her and she was unconscious it would be precious time lost looking for that person when he ran. So, for law enforcement it is a very important detail but for the social game, not so much. This was not a social game, she felt the need for back up and the need to run his plate and background.

I find it scary that your officers cannot run plates on someone who refuse to take orders from officers. Here it is an offense not to have a child correctly seated in a car. That seems grounds enough to run his plates. A child should never be in the front seat, an air bag can and will kill a child. She told him not to go, he refused and he grazed her with his car. Here that would be two counts against him; refusal to obey an officer and assault with a deadly weapon. It doesn't matter if it was a graze or he broke every bone in her body: assault. Actually I find it very scary that an officer cannot run plates on anyone that seem suspicious. That's how a lot of our criminals are caught!

Now, understand I am comparing your complaint with my country's laws so I may be totally off base here with your country's laws.

It's great that you stand up for your fellow man if you think things have been handled poorly. Sometimes even the police need to be policed. I hope you still feel this way even if the outcome is not what you think it should be.

[Oscar Namechange]

911;1462870 wrote: I think what you have done is laudable. Standing up to authorities is one thing but, to continue is something most people would not do. They may register their complaint but to continue with it would be "too much trouble". Not you!

In your post #6, you stated she said "aggressive male" but in post #27 you stated she said "aggressive black male". Your attention to detail is great but this is an important detail and not an important detail. Let me explain. Should he have hurt her and she was unconscious it would be precious time lost looking for that person when he ran. So, for law enforcement it is a very important detail but for the social game, not so much. This was not a social game, she felt the need for back up and the need to run his plate and background.

I find it scary that your officers cannot run plates on someone who refuse to take orders from officers. Here it is an offense not to have a child correctly seated in a car. That seems grounds enough to run his plates. A child should never be in the front seat, an air bag can and will kill a child. She told him not to go, he refused and he grazed her with his car. Here that would be two counts against him; refusal to obey an officer and assault with a deadly weapon. It doesn't matter if it was a graze or he broke every bone in her body: assault. Actually I find it very scary that an officer cannot run plates on anyone that seem suspicious. That's how a lot of our criminals are caught!

Now, understand I am comparing your complaint with my country's laws so I may be totally off base here with your country's laws.

It's great that you stand up for your fellow man if you think things have been handled poorly. Sometimes even the police need to be policed. I hope you still feel this way even if the outcome is not what you think it should be.


Thank you very much for your frank and honest reply which I appreciate. You have raised some very good points.

You are absolutely correct In that I said ' aggressive male' and then ' aggressive black male' My husband states she said ' very aggressive black male' and Is sure of that. so before I told the police anything today, I tried to put myself In the zone, as weird as that sounds, to the time and place to recall exactly. I told the officer who took my statement today that I believed she said 'black male. I didn't want to lie so my statement says ' I believe she said...

The male or black male Issue, I've been told Is actually Irrelevent... the whole Issue Is about her stating he was aggressive and using that for a radio check when he was not aggressive,

My Interview was very In depth and we talked about other ways she could have dealt with the young man. EG It's suggested that maybe another officer would have offered him the chance of parking up his vehicle and calling a relative to come and collect the little girl with a bolster seat. She did not suggest that. When he kept asking ' what am I supposed to have done wrong' she should have explained the child seat law to him but didn't.

As for the law.. the officer was very good today and explained to me that the stop and search laws and vehicle checks are a little muddyed as to what reason they need to stop a car.

This Is more about the arresting officer's and cheif witness statements saying he revved the car full throttle to deliberately mow her down which Is just not true.

The police can run a vehicle check If as you say, they are acting suspiciously and the officer today gave me an example. Say, they've been called to a burglary at 3 am, the streets are deserted except for on car In the Immediate vacinity of the break In and It looks like there's goods In the back of the car. Then they have the right to stop and run a vehicle check because by being the only car In the vacinity, It's a possibility, It may have had something to do with the break In, however, the officer must say to the driver ' there's been a break In two streets away and your the only car on the roads, we need to just check your vehicle.'

In my case, that was not the case. She could have allowed him to park up In the field and call someone with a bolster seat. There was no robbery, no suspicious activity, he wasn't trying to run, he never left the car and the car was In good order. Not a reason to call In a vehicle check. Even If It was, she did not Inform him of why she Intended to do that.

[911]

I hope you keep us up to date with everything going on and let us know how things turn out.

I think, IMO, that he broke the law first by having the child in the seat but, the officer handled it too harshly and things got a little out of control. Perhaps she has anger problems-with everyone-black or white.

This is very interesting, like reading a book, I can't wait to see how it turns out.

[Oscar Namechange]

911;1462892 wrote: I hope you keep us up to date with everything going on and let us know how things turn out.

I think, IMO, that he broke the law first by having the child in the seat but, the officer handled it too harshly and things got a little out of control. Perhaps she has anger problems-with everyone-black or white.

This is very interesting, like reading a book, I can't wait to see how it turns out. The way I see It... he wasn't acting suspiciously, he wasn't racing around the streets In his car speeding but he was at a market with his child. There was absolutely nothing suspicious about him.

It seemed just the car seat Issue being the excuse to target him.

It's like the question the Inspector asked me ' Do you believe that had he of been handled differently, this could have had a different outcome?' and I have to say 'Yes'.

The question now, Is do I go to the IPCC ( Independant Police Complaints Commission) and have her Investigated for an allegation of racism?

It's a toughy.

I'll see what the Inspector says when he calls me to discuss It.

[FourPart]

Police can & do run routine Plate checks. It's so routine that it's done automatically. The cars have built in cameras that recognise the numbers & automatically check them with the central database to check for all sorts of things, such as stolen, no MOT, Tax, Insurance, Valid Driving Licence, Owner Wanted for anything, etc. They don't have to have a reason to do so. Frankly I'm fascinated with what the technology is capable of.

Your descriptive terms of the officer are putting you in good stead for Politics. Now, you must remember that the Official Term is "Pleb".

[Oscar Namechange]

FourPart;1462902 wrote: Police can & do run routine Plate checks. It's so routine that it's done automatically. The cars have built in cameras that recognise the numbers & automatically check them with the central database to check for all sorts of things, such as stolen, no MOT, Tax, Insurance, Valid Driving Licence, Owner Wanted for anything, etc. They don't have to have a reason to do so. Frankly I'm fascinated with what the technology is capable of.

Your descriptive terms of the officer are putting you in good stead for Politics. Now, you must remember that the Official Term is "Pleb".


I agree, with traffic cops.

This young man was In the middle of a field, stationary with a car In good order and trust me, she made every effort to fins something on that car and found nothing. So he was not suspicious In any way, there were other cars also waiting to exit, some, right old heaps of junk, but she did not look around their cars, It was all about him and It has to be said, the only black man In the queue.

The Inspector e mailed me last night and I replied. I can't say what he's telling me as the e mail states ' Restricted'... but, he's being most fair.

We are discussing formal complaints.

[Oscar Namechange]

The Inspector rang again today and Is phoning back tomorrow.

The CPS Is still currently reviewing the evidence and conflicting police statements. The fact that the CPS are holding off tells me, there's doubt whether they'll secure a conviction.

That also tells me, I did the right thing, Had Peter and I not of come forward and Insisted our statements were taken, I believe he'd have had a date by now to appear before the Magistrates to enter his plea.

It makes you wonder how many cases go to court where the witness's are ' selected' only to favour the prosecution. I myself experienced similar when It was me.

So tomorrow, I'll decide once and for all If I want the IPCC brought In or whether I agree for the Inspector to handle the complaint against the officer himself. Let's wait and see what he thinks.

As It stands now, they have the Officers and chief witness statements but with the young man, now 3 accusations that the arrest was racially motivated. They are a canny lot the CPS and I doubt they'll want this to blow up.

[Oscar Namechange]

Spoke to the Inspector today.

We've agreed he will deal with the Officer Internally.

He has stated that he also believes had she of approached the young man differently, the outcome would have been different.

CPS still deciding

[911]

Good deal!

I hope they are keeping this guy in the loop and not treading water and not knowing what's going on. Poor fella

[Oscar Namechange]

911;1463725 wrote: Good deal!

I hope they are keeping this guy in the loop and not treading water and not knowing what's going on. Poor fella


I appreciated the Inspector's honesty and while chatting, he even admitted the young man's child car seat was In fact legal. Hence, absolutely no reason to stop the young man and ask for a vehicle check In the first place. The Inspector also agreed with the breaches of police procedure I highlighted. You have to pity the officer, of all the stalls, In all the land, she does this Infront of me !!

I just have a gut feeling, that should the CPS go ahead and prosecute him and him pleading not guilty, the police may actually lose the case In trial.

I would Imagine the young man has a solicitor by now who'll be keeping him updated but I just hope the CPS drops It. Time will tell.

[FourPart]

I can't really see them bothering tbh. It's just not economically or PR viable.

[FourPart]

I just noticed that by typing PR (Public Relations) it came up underlined, like a hyperlink, and on a mouseover it comes up as Google Page Ranking.

[Oscar Namechange]

FourPart;1463785 wrote: I can't really see them bothering tbh. It's just not economically or PR viable.


The CPS decide whether to or not prosecute anyone based on the evidence the arresting officer presents to them. If the CPS only have statements from witness's favourable to the arresting officer, then they'll prosecute. That's why we kicked up and Insisted our statements were taken to give a more balanced view.

In my own case, my husband and my chief defence witness who saw most of It was never offered the opportunity to give statements to be presented In balance to the CPS.

In fact, under cross examination, my lawyer asked of the arresting officer, why she visited every shop on the parade asking If they had cctv or could be witness's but omitted the one shop where cctv showed the youth cycling past ( meaning the route he gave In his police statement was lies). He also asked why all the youths had testified that when she took their statements, they Informed her of a school teacher who had led away one extremely aggressive youth by the elbow yet she had not obtained a statement from her either. She claimed she knew nothing about the mention of this teacher which would actually mean, that four youths had lied under oath. hmmm yeah right !!!

[FourPart]

So what you're saying is that that the evidence of 1 witness totally outweighs the evidence of all the others whose stories independently corroborate each other?

It makes no difference what that 1 witness saw ( believes they saw), when it comes to trial, if I were on the Jury I think I know which story I'd believe.

[Oscar Namechange]

FourPart;1463816 wrote: So what you're saying is that that the evidence of 1 witness totally outweighs the evidence of all the others whose stories independently corroborate each other?

It makes no difference what that 1 witness saw ( believes they saw), when it comes to trial, if I were on the Jury I think I know which story I'd believe.


No.

What I am saying Is In cases like this, we all believe those In authority do the right thing by us. In cases like this, that Is not the case. A police officer can be sued for either ' Malicious Arrest' or False Arrest so It makes sense that they want the case to be prosecuted. In order to get that case prosecuted, they will often only take witness statements that are favourable to them. If there Is an Independant witness, as In my case, the school teacher, that Is going to help the defence and not the prosecution, they can deny that person the opportunity to make a statement. Not everyone has the luxury of the best lawyer In the country who carried out his own Investigation,

More often than not, even In cases of assault, the officer believes that It's going to be a quick caution down the police station. When I was arrested, my arresting officer said to a Tory Councillor ' oh she'll only be about 20 minutes' ... that was entirely on the assumption, I would accept a caution that was offered.

[Oscar Namechange]

Update

Now subject to Sub Judce law I can only say the CPS has charged the young man with assaulting a police officer by vehicle. Have been contacted today by his lawyer and we will be giving evidence for his defence at a full trial.