Sea water thread

[CODHEED]

Students were throwing rubbish over my back wall cos they couldn't open their back door. I threw the rubbish back over their wall and rightly so IMO.

3 drunk students come onto my property and bray on my door and windows at 11.30pm on a Sunday night. I get out of bed open the door and tell them to eff off. Next thing I know I'm being dragged out of bed by coppers and read the riot act. I was charged under section 4 and fined £300. .

I pleaded not guilty but wasn't allowed a proper trial, just a Micky Mouse one in the magistrates court. The point of law under which I was convicted was that one of the students (who was studying law) became frightened and "THOUGHT" I was going to hit him.

The students addmitted being drunk, littering and tresspassing and I was relyiing on the police statements to say I was in bed and sober. I dont know why but the police lied and said I was drunk and abbusive.

The only logical explaination I can come up with is that someones promising legal career was under threat if convicted and the police statements were fabricated to make me look the baddy.

During the taped interview the police said that I had done the right thing by closing my door on the drunken tresspassers and going to bed but funny enough I tried in vain for 2 years to obtain a copy of the tape, so my breif was probably in on it too!

I stood in the dock and heard a PC and a WPC lie to magistrates

Not long after I built a porch and done some remedial work on a coppers house and charged him £300 over the top but it still doesn't help that I've got a criminal record after being squeaky clean for most of my life.

you were given the same rights as anyone else, section 4 public order act is a summary only offence and can only be tried at mags court.

From 11.5 years of experience i have never ever known an innocent person get convicted of anything. I have also met hundreds , no make that probably thousands of people who have been working themselves and have claimed to be sober despite it being obvious to everyone that there mortal drunk.

Also i have never seen anyone charged with section 4 for simply telling someone to "eff off" since the offence involves intentionally threatening violence there is no way in the world the cps would have run a case for telling someone to "eff off".

I think for whatever reason you have an axe to grind so your exaggerating things a bit here.

[tonynufc]

Students were throwing rubbish over my back wall cos they couldn't open their back door. I threw the rubbish back over their wall and rightly so IMO.

3 drunk students come onto my property and bray on my door and windows at 11.30pm on a Sunday night. I get out of bed open the door and tell them to eff off. Next thing I know I'm being dragged out of bed by coppers and read the riot act. I was charged under section 4 and fined £300. .

I pleaded not guilty but wasn't allowed a proper trial, just a Micky Mouse one in the magistrates court. The point of law under which I was convicted was that one of the students (who was studying law) became frightened and "THOUGHT" I was going to hit him.

The students addmitted being drunk, littering and tresspassing and I was relyiing on the police statements to say I was in bed and sober. I dont know why but the police lied and said I was drunk and abbusive.

The only logical explaination I can come up with is that someones promising legal career was under threat if convicted and the police statements were fabricated to make me look the baddy.

During the taped interview the police said that I had done the right thing by closing my door on the drunken tresspassers and going to bed but funny enough I tried in vain for 2 years to obtain a copy of the tape, so my breif was probably in on it too!

I stood in the dock and heard a PC and a WPC lie to magistrates

Not long after I built a porch and done some remedial work on a coppers house and charged him £300 over the top but it still doesn't help that I've got a criminal record after being squeaky clean for most of my life.

you should get that tape, as far as im aware if your interviewed you always get asked if you want a copy of the tape. they obviously dont want to give you the tape as it will make them look like the lying scum that they are.

[Davyred]

you were given the same rights as anyone else, section 4 public order act is a summary only offence and can only be tried at mags court.

From 11.5 years of experience i have never ever known an innocent person get convicted of anything.

I think the post you replied to could be one. Why would he bother to lie and make it up?

[Oblickta]

I have no axe to grind with anyone

I know what happened that day

My dad was a PC (Gosforth) as was my granda, I have a niece in the Newcastle force and a nephew in the force down in Derbyshire. I was brought up to respect the law

[CODHEED]

you should get that tape, as far as im aware if your interviewed you always get asked if you want a copy of the tape. they obviously dont want to give you the tape as it will make them look like the lying scum that they are.

if there was a tabe and the case went to trial the mags would have had acess to the tape and transcripts of the tape, whatever was said on interview would be make public in court.

I am sure the original posters solicitor would have made the court aware if such lies had been told as part of his defence. if the lies had been told and the solicitor didnt mention them i suggest you sack them because they failed you massively.

[anndy]

I re joined because of that thread, as far as i am concerned it was a complete load of rubbish, if you could steal sea water then logic says you would be stealing the fish,worms and crabs too!

it never happened, as a cop i can guarantee its a load of tripe.

not having a go at any one here....... but how can you guarrantee it never happed

[mick dunn]

I really think this subject should now be laid to rest.

[Charlie_Thompson]

Move to Chat maybe?

[tonynufc]

Move to Chat maybe?

or just start a new thread in chat as im enjoying this one

[pottsy]

I have moved it to chat but really think it should be allowed to die a natural death as its starting to get personal again. If anybody has any issues can you take them to pm instead of having a handbag fight on the forum. Ta much

[mark]

From 11.5 years of experience i have never ever known an innocent person get convicted of anything. I have also met hundreds , no make that probably thousands of people who have been working themselves and have claimed to be sober despite it being obvious to everyone that there mortal drunk.

the most laughable thing you've said, either since you rejoined or before you were banned previously. You obviously have not read a newspaper or seen a news bulletin in the last 12 years

guildford 4, birmingham 6, bridgewater 4, sally clark, angela cannings, colin stagg, stefan kiszko, andrew adams and many others who's lives and families lives were permanently ruined, and spent many years in the chokey because the police LIED and FALSIFIED EVIDENCE

and thats just the high profile ones that imediately spring to mind

John Charles De Menezes wasn't quite so lucky, some trigger happy cops just shot him in the head a few times and then lied

as for the drunk bit, I don't know why they don't just have the words "his eyes were glazed, his breath smelt of alcohol - he was drunk' pre printed on the charge sheet

piece of **** to wave that particular charge around, it would take 30 seconds to breathalise them in the charge room and establish it as FACT ie THE TRUTH

but that would be way too easy, and good forbid, raise the possibility that an easy cop out for a conviction is no longer available, and justification for an arrest

20 years ago some nob had a pop at me in the toon one night, I'd just got off the train from london and was waiting for a taxi, so defending myself I ended up sticking one on him - and what do you know 10 mins later I'm in market street charged with 'drunk and disorderley'

'his eyes were glazed, his breath smelt etc etc etc'

gets to court, cps plonkers says 'this is a simple matter of D&D, and would request calls for witness statements be denied'

bish bash bosh have a 50 quid fine young man

[The Great Wallsendo]

...Can we please have healthy debate and discussion without getting personal about certain professions

And don't get me started on gritters

[pottsy]

And don't get me started on gritters

he he he

[tonynufc]

as for the drunk bit, I don't know why they don't just have the words "his eyes were glazed, his breath smelt of alcohol - he was drunk' pre printed on the charge sheet

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha pmsl..... what a belter

[CODHEED]

[QUOTE=mark;161439]the most laughable thing you've said, either since you rejoined or before you were banned previously. You obviously have not read a newspaper or seen a news bulletin in the last 12 years

I meant in my personal experience, not random stuff from the media



as for the drunk bit, I don't know why they don't just have the words "his eyes were glazed, his breath smelt of alcohol - he was drunk' pre printed on the charge sheet

Those words wouldnt appear on a charge sheet anyway

piece of **** to wave that particular charge around, it would take 30 seconds to breathalise them in the charge room and establish it as FACT ie THE TRUTH

breathaliseing someone doesnt prove they are drunk, it proves the alcohol level in the breath. For example a hardened alcoholic could be 3 times the drink drive limit but not drunk as such, seen it loads of times.

but that would be way too easy, and good forbid, raise the possibility that an easy cop out for a conviction is no longer available, and justification for an arrest

Justification for arrest? and how do you prove we evidentially breath test someone without arresting them? the machine is at the police station!

20 years ago some nob had a pop at me in the toon one night, I'd just got off the train from london and was waiting for a taxi, so defending myself I ended up sticking one on him - and what do you know 10 mins later I'm in market street charged with 'drunk and disorderley'

'his eyes were glazed, his breath smelt etc etc etc'

gets to court, cps plonkers says 'this is a simple matter of D&D, and would request calls for witness statements be denied'

witness statements to be denied??? load of rubbish disclosure rules mean the defence can see all the statements and all the unused material in any case, unused material can be all sorts of things from crime reports,notebook entries, incident logs etc etc and officers disciplianary records which are supplied in every case that goes to trial


i think some of the posters on here have been waching life on mars and the bill too much and believe what they see.