http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fc7_1391532479

Had a wee search and couldn’t see this so apologies if its been done.
Unbelievable. Not sure what the outcome was though..

I saw this on the TV the other day. They’re calling it “teagate.”

Jivehoneyjive posted it last week but yep, terrible stuff- “Right, I want this observer out of the way because we don’t like being watched. What can I threaten him with. Drink driving? He’s not in a car and he’s not been drinking. Who cares? Oh he says he’s drunk tea? I’ll pretend he’s admitted to drinking.” and all on video. Talk about disrespect for the law…

I love the guy who turns up halfway through “Mate, I’ve literally just woken up, what’s happening?”

So was he drinking or not?

Surprise surprise. More quality polis work.

so, what was the outcome?

That policeman is pretty thick.

GMP’s Facebook page is entertaining.

https://www.facebook.com/GtrManchesterPolice

so, what was the outcome?

He’s suing them.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/salford-anti-fracking-protester-sue-greater-6676499

So was he drinking or not?

Irrelevant, he’d walked there.

The officer ‘framing’ him was an inspector as well not a bobby just out of police college. Ridiculous behaviour from a senior officer.

You wonder how it even got to court.

First time I listened, I did initially think he said ‘I’ve had two’ (1:18)

Hmmm, wondering what happened in the Duggan case now……………….

You wonder how it even got to court.

The DPP are supposed to filter out nonsence cases as well as blatant framing by the Police…

First time I listened, I did initially think he said ‘I’ve had two’ (1:18)

He says “I’ve had tea.”

The officer ‘framing’ him was an inspector as well

Sergeant, I believe.

The officer ‘framing’ him was an inspector as well not a bobby just out of police college. Ridiculous behaviour from a senior officer.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/4910218.___PC_was_not_a_scapegoat_for_corrupt_squad___/

I thought he had 2 pips on his shoulder?

Cougar, I know he did now, but first time I listened I did think he said two

First time I listened, I did initially think he said ‘I’ve had two’ (1:18)

Ah, that’s what the copper thought too. He says afterwards, “you’ve just told me you’ve had two drinks.” He misheard him.

EDIT – yes, I see what you were getting at now, sorry.

Yep I just checked 2 pips, the newspapers got it wrong.

I wonder how many innocent people have found themselves with a criminal record after being framed by this bent copper. If he is happy to do this on camera, god knows what he has been up to when off camera in a one word against another scenario.

This was flung out of court at first hearing due to insufficient evidence. They would have better used this wasted time to prosecute the inspector in question. No doubt he will be well protected by like minded colleagues as usual and this will quickly be forgotten.

Yep I just checked 2 pips, the newspapers got it wrong.

Fair play.

This why I generally do not

support the work of the Police

If he is happy to do this on camera,

You know, that’s what I really don’t understand. Even if you’re for want of a better term a “bent copper”, why would you do it in front of a bloke you can clearly see is videoing you? Cretin.

Cougar – at 2:15, the copper refers to him as Stephen and asks where his car is, his Blue Mercedes

Since he appears to have known this without being told, (and the name of the other one who has just woken up) Its pretty clear that he knows the ‘legal observer’ fairly well, and presumably how and when he normally gets to site?

Putting that knowledge together with someone smelling of ale, I reckon its very different from picking a protester at random out of a crowd and accusing him!

Allegedly the court transcript of the case..

Usher – “can you stand at the end”
Freeman – “I claim common law jurisdiction, I do not consent and I wave the benefits”
Magistrate – “Can you repeat that”
Freeman – “I claim common law jurisdiction, I do not consent and I wave the benefits”
Magistrate (to other two magistrates) – “I don’t think we have had that before”
Clerk – “Are you Steven Spy?”
Freeman – “I am Steven of the family Spy”
Clerk – ” Are you Steven Spy?”
Freeman – “I am Steven of the family Spy”
Clerk – “Where do you live?”
Freeman – “I live on the land”
Clerk – “Can you confirm your date of birth”
Freeman – “I believe that would be hearsay evidence, your honour”
Clerk – “If you honour is satisfied we have identified the defendant, we can continue”.
Prosecution – “The prosecution is not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge, therefore we withdraw the case”
Clerk – ” Do you understand that the prosecution is withdrawing its case”
Freeman – “No I do not understand, but I do comprehend”
Magistrate – “Whether you understand or comprehend, the prosecution is
withdrawing its case, so the case is dismissed and you are free to go”
Freeman – “Thank you, your honour”.

Cougar – Moderator

Ah, that’s what the copper thought too. He says afterwards, “you’ve just told me you’ve had two drinks.” He misheard him.

No he didn’t- first he pretends he can smell alcohol, then he seizes on anything he can to support that, even when being corrected, and just keeps on repeating “You have said this”…

Its pretty clear that he knows the ‘legal observer’ fairly well

Yeah, there’s clearly previous here. Presumably they’ve got the arseache with him because he’s always there, and has the audacity to be filming in an unrestricted public place, knowing his rights and not be breaking any laws.

first he pretends he can smell alcohol,

What evidence is there that he didn’t?

I’ve certainly smelled of booze the morning after on a good few occasions!

Presumably they’ve got the arseache with him because he’s always there, and has the audacity to be filming in an unrestricted public place

Or perhaps he smelled of ale, and the copper knew he normally drives there in a blue Mercedes?

Allegedly the court transcript of the case..

Who’s Steven Spy? I’d question the authenticity of any “transcript” that can’t even get the defendant’s name right.

Unless the media misreported that as well, of course.

What evidence is there that he didn’t?

The case being thrown out due to lack of evidence.

Who’s Stephen Spy? I’d question the authenticity of any “transcript” that can’t even get the defendant’s name right.”

Yup, hence the allegedly bit.
It would be interesting to hear the full story from both parties, but I doubt that’s ever going to happen.

If that’s a genuine transcript then he gets no respect from me, that freeman on the land shit is tiresome enough at the best of times but under these circumstances it’s a nonsense.

ninfan – Member

What evidence is there that he didn’t?

The inconvenient part that he’d not been drinking. Also the incredibly obvious way that he suddenly decides, halfway through the conversation, that it’s a convenient justification to move him on. The accusation follows the desire basically, he decides what he needs and then he instantly “finds” it

IanMunro – Lack of evidence that he had driven there that morning, perhaps!

Thats far from lack of evidence that he smelled of booze, given your allegation is that the copper was lying when he said he could smell it!

The inconvenient part that he’d not been drinking.

Again, thats not evidence that he didn’t smell of booze from the night before – as I’ve been guilty of on occasion, and I’ve been breath tested on that basis too (but blown well under the limit)!

Even if you believe he genuinely did smell booze- and that’s a reach under the circumstances- it’s not actually at all important, drinking is not a crime in itself. It still comes down to the same problem- the policeman created a jumped up charge in order to prevent an observer from observing.

“Yes officer, I have been drinking. What are you going to charge me with, being Drunk In Charge Of Feet?”

policeman created a jumped up charge

From the police point of view:

protester thats a pain in the arse, irrelevant!

protester that he knows well enough to identify by name and vehicle, and knows normally drives there, and who smells of booze in the morning more than reasonable suspicion

In fact the fact that he knew him well enough to ID him like that undermines the ‘jumped up charge’ because he’s clearly been there before lots of times without the police needing to magically trump something up against him!

Clerk – “Can you confirm your date of birth”
Freeman – “I believe that would be hearsay evidence, your honour”

I LOLed

mitsumonkey – Member
I thought he had 2 pips on his shoulder?

**** chip on his shoulder more like. And one that clearly wants knocking off!
****!