Forum menu
i've watched this a couple of times now.
the copper was absolutely useless! surely he should of just arrested the rlj for the offense?
sorry another question.
if there is no other evidence apart from the coppers, then is it not your word against his?
The policeman would not need a corroborating witness in England but there would almost certainly be CCTV to support him as London is covered in cameras.
I personally hope the self righteous cyclist is now arrested as it will be easy for him to be identified and is given the ticket plus an obstruction charge.
The Policeman was definitely not having a good day, basic stuff really. Must have become a bit camera shy.
SECTION 25 Police and Criminal Evidence Act
General Power of Arrest for Non-Arrestable Offences
The usual procedure for prosecution of non-arrestable offences is by way of a summons to appear before magistrates. But where the police reasonably suspect you of committing or having committed a non-arrestable offence, then they may arrest you if they believe that the service of a summons in impractical because any one of the general arrest conditions under Section 25 of PACE is satisfied.
These conditions are as follows:
(1) They cannot establish your name or they think you have given a false one, OR
(2) They cannot establish an address suitable for the service of a summons or they think you have given a false one, OR
(3) They have reasonable grounds to believe arrest is necessary to prevent you from doing any of the following:
(i) causing physical injury to yourself or any other person, OR
(ii) suffering physical injury; OR
(iii) causing loss of or damage to property; OR
(iv) committing an offence against public decency, OR
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway.
if there is no other evidence apart from the coppers, then is it not your word against his?
I thought that, surely 'Sorry officer but I saw the light as being green not red, do you have any evidence to say otherwise' would have got him out of that one?
I got pulled for jumping a red light (country lane, temp lights which had just not been taken down, could see nothing was coming) the car behind was un-marked. Got called a few names, told I give cyclists a bad name and thats why all drivers hate us and told to go on my way. I did however give the sorry officer, yes officer, won't happen again officer line and passed the attitude test!!
Running red lights is stupidity, and it annoys me.
Police not knowing basics such as how and when they can arrest someone, and the laws requiring how they can ask for information, is also stupidity, and annoys me.
I'm a layman and even I know the copper could have used the Road Traffic Act - you HAVE to give your details even as a cyclist if you have committed an offence of dangerous, inconsiderate or careless cycling which running a red light would be.
Poor old PC Stout needs a refresher course I think.
ive stopped countless cyclists without lights,jumping red lights and only ever issued 2 tickets
in the police world it called failing the attitude test!
Whilst I have always played this with good manners when I have been pulled as I like to win the game, and it works, it actually pisses me off that you feel you have the right to arrest/ticket someone just because you don't like their attitude, its unedifying on your part and reveals a fairly large addiction to the abuse of your own power, and is what gives coppers a bad name.
toys19 - easygirl didn't mention arresting twice, only ticketing?
neninja - Member
The policeman would not need a corroborating witness in England
then that is shocking, why would a coppers word be worth more than mine?
waswas good point! I shall edit my post..
Although she did say earlier that she would have arrested him.
The point is that PC Stout isn't a very good copper because he proved to all and sundry that he didn't really know what he was doing. When it got beyond him and he knew it he resorted to trying to cover his ass by grabbing the camera. So I think exposing his flaws was a benefit to all as he either needs to retrain or just not be a policeman, we need effective cops not useless ones.
I'm not a cop but I reckon he should have held his cool and laughed off matey's attempts to bamboozle him by just admitting he wasn't sure and radioing back to base for clarification/support. He was more worried that he had lost face by not knowing than enforcing the law.
I thinkt he point is that if you don't recognise your guilt and show some sort of remorse then you get a ticket.
If you refuse to even engage in the process then you get arrested.
It's like dealign with kids they do somethign wrong and then;
1) if they say sorry you let them carry on
2) if they won't say sorry you make the threat of a punishment
3) if they still won't say sorry they go on the naughty step.
People seem to behave in ways that they'd critise a 3 year old for being liek and then come over 'Who me?' if challenged about it.
Anyone siding with the copper is a fascist and why don't you just go and live in a totalitarian state?
What some of you don't realise, with your knickers all in a twist about this 'terrible heinous crime', is that although the copper has a duty to uphold Law and Order, he must always ensure he knows what law he's actually going to use if he's going to charge someone with an offence. I've got off stuff that I've been blatantly guilty of, simply cos a copper's used the wrong section of law or something. The copper has a legal obligation to actually know what he's doing, simple as that. As it happens, it's the copper who commits the more serious offence, by lunging at the camera. Not allowed.
Shows that ordinary bobbies really do need educating to a higher standard; why they aren't taught at least A-Level Law is crazy. I've outwitted thick coppers numerous times, sometimes even with blatant BS, cos they simply don't know what Laws are what.
The cyclist does come across as a bit of a pretentious arrogant sod, but I quite like that. It's a battle of wills, and the less intelligent person lost out.
The biggest mistake the cyclist made was to allow himself to be caught and stopped by the rozzer in the first place. I'd've just accelerated smoothly away, laughing at PC Stout. 😀
I thinkt he point is that if you don't recognise your guilt and show some sort of remorse then you get a ticket.
Yeah its actually arbitrary though isn't it, because the cops normally say sorry you've broken the law it doesn't matter what you say if the laws broken then you get a ticket/arrested/prosecuted whatever, or as easygirl implies, she'll let you off if you flatter her.
I play the game and am always dead nice to coppers, but that really shows how wrong the system is and what ego monsters they are. They exert their power over you by getting you to prostrate yourself in front of them and worship their almighty power. If that doesn't work they exert their power by arresting you. It's just different forms of subjugation.
What easygirl is describing is 'discretion' which is more often than not used to the benefit of the general public. You don't want Gestapo style Policing do you.
If one offender says simply " Sorry, fair cop. won't do it again"
And the other says "Sod you, stick it"
Guess who gets the ticket....
Sometimes words of advice will suffice , sometimes not.
After all, in this case the officer is only attempting to prevent someone getting injured!
It is enough that a Policeman alone witnesses something as simple as running a traffic light.
I'm a serial RLJer and this thread has been quite entertaining.
I too am irked by the fact that you have to be subservient to the Police when they are treating you like a three year old, but normally tow the line to speed things up.
The whole RLJ problem would be lessened if the roads were designed more with bikes in mind. I only RLJ where there are obvious pedestrian green men, the chance I will get mowed down by a tsunami of traffic, no pedestrians and do so at walking speed. Should I be expected to dismount at every traffic light for the sake of circumstance?
the whole situation could have been much nicer.
coppa 'dont do that again, think of the guy who might hit you. nice bike btw...now 8888 off'
bloke 'sorry about that, hope you have nice day, cheers'
What easygirl is describing is 'discretion' which is more often than not used to the benefit of the general public. You don't want Gestapo style Policing do you.If one offender says simply " Sorry, fair cop. won't do it again"
And the other says "Sod you, stick it"
Guess who gets the ticket....
They either both should get a ticket or not. A persons attitude is their right.
The whole RLJ problem would be lessened if the roads were designed more with bikes in mind. I only RLJ where there are obvious pedestrian green men, no pedestrians and do so at walking speed. Should I be expected to dismount at every traffic light for the sake of circumstance?
This ^
Most of the situations I came across went along the lines of wot 'TANG' said.
[i]They either both should get a ticket or not. A persons attitude is their right. [/i]
but the courts work the same way - if you plead guily at an early opportunity and express remorse you get a lesser sentence than if you plead not guilty and force a trial?
Why shoudl someone who says 'I'm sorry, I'll try not to do it again' get the same punishment as the idiot in the video?
(and yes everyone knows it's a bit of game and that saying 'sorry' is just a part of the game).
I got knocked off my bike this morning at a junction. I was trying to get info off the driver, witness details etc, but was struggling as I was a little shook up.
Fortunately for me a passing Police car stopped, sorted out the driver details and wrote them down for me (i didn't have a pen/paper) checked the driver was insured etc. and made sure I was okay.
Complete tools like the guy in the video gives us all a bad name, would the police have been quite so helpful if they had just watched that video or would I have been treated as another moronic bolshy cyclist. I'm embarrassed that the guy calls himself a cyclist.
I'm not a cop but I reckon he should have held his cool and laughed off matey's attempts to bamboozle him by just admitting he wasn't sure and radioing back to base for clarification
That ^
Fred - to a point. A policeman needs to know whether or not something is an offence, but knowing the exact wording/definition and Act/Section of every offence would be impossible to retain. I did a driver last year for crossing solid lines on blind bends repeatedly. I know it's an offence, I know the defences and exemptions, but did I at the time know the exact wording? No. But he needed doing before he kills someone.
You wouldn't be impressed if you caught someone nicking your bike, flagged me down, only for me to say 'Sorry Fred, I know it's a crime to nick your bike, but I can't remember exactly which section of the Theft Act it is so we'll have to let him go this time". Or would that be ok 😉
It is enough that a Policeman alone witnesses something as simple as running a traffic light.
now this really does piss me off.
copper could be having a bad day, could make up all sorts.
lets face it there's loads of arse hole copper around, same as there's lots of arse hole members of the public.
so why is a coppers word worth more than a member of the publics! i don't expect there's an answer.
duntstick - Member
Most of the situations I came across went along the lines of wot 'TANG' said.
Me too but only because cops intimidate me and I don't have the balls or the command of the law like the guy in the vid.
I once got off a speeding charge by being smart, but I was actually not speeding and I was incensed by what this copper was doing/saying (basically making it up and I proved he was making it up).
but the courts work the same way - if you plead guily at an early opportunity and express remorse you get a lesser sentence than if you plead not guilty and force a trial?Why shoudl someone who says 'I'm sorry, I'll try not to do it again' get the same punishment as the idiot in the video?
(and yes everyone knows it's a bit of game and that saying 'sorry' is just a part of the game).
Yeah I can kind of see what you mean, but this relates to the sentence not the guilt right? The sentence is to do with the severity of the crime and how you compound it by wasting the courts time. A judge has a mandate to be fair in front of lots of witnesses, there is representation for the prosecution and the defence, it is fair. Coppers can do what they like and deprive your liberty on a whim, it is vitally different. TBH I would prefer it if I was magically transported to be in front of a judge every time I was pulled for something rather than deal with an egomaniac copper.
so why is a coppers word worth more than a member of the publics! i don't expect there's an answer.
Ultimately it would be down to the magistrate to decide who they believed.
Ultimately it would be down to the magistrate to decide who they believed
I think this is true. But wouldn't a magistrate probably take the coppers word over the civvy?
copper could be having a bad day, could make up all sorts.
lets face it there's loads of arse hole copper around, same as there's lots of arse hole members of the public.
This^
Every time I hear about the IPCC they find that the cops are alright, I refuse to believe that this is true,and it undermines the IPCC that they never find a bent copper, there must be some out there.
toys19 is the RLJ in the vid. Where do I claim my prize?
im with the guy - really i am.....
if he thinks the guy is guilty - and wont play ball, then arrest the guy...if hes 100% sure of what hes arresting him for then go ahead and do it...
he got talked out of that by somebody who knew a little bit about the law, and failed miserably to conduct any form of intelligence what so ever....
he lost out in a 'word game' simple as that, and therefore if he cant even do that and correctly arrest/issue a ticket, then the guy deserved to carry on riding and be on his way...
the law student is within his rights to defencd/ask those questions, absolutly....arrogance or otherwise has nothing to do with it, he is just excercising his rights and the law....
if he hadnt have been filming then im sure it would have been a different story, whether the officer was trying to stay as calm as possible knowing full well a camera is there and being filmed, i assume probably so...i doubt very much that it would have been the case without the camera though.....
so who is the arrogant one really? the law student using the law as his defence, or the officer not using the law and thinking he can do/fine/arrest a person with out actually knowing what the law is?!?!
the fact he run a red light almost becomes insignificant the way the video unfolds....
You wouldn't be impressed if you caught someone nicking your bike, flagged me down, only for me to say 'Sorry Fred, I know it's a crime to nick your bike, but I can't remember exactly which section of the Theft Act it is so we'll have to let him go this time".
Look how you've come up with some nonsense just to try to counter my point. Not worked mate. If I told you I believed someone had committed the act of theft, then you'd have to act on that. You'd arrest the miscreant for theft. Quite simple. What's happened in the video, is the copper is quoting some rubbish, but doesn't know what he can charge the cyclist with, regarding the giving of personal details. You can see he's desperately trying to think of something, as he's clearly exasperated by the arrogance of the cyclist, but fails to do so, and then loses control. You should be condemning the actions of the copper, if you're so concerned with upholding Law and Order.
Love the way people are condemning the cyclist, without actually knowing the circumstances surrounding his terrible crime. It might have bin perfectly safe for him to jump the light, we don't know.
And to all the sanctimonious lot; you've never jumped a red light? Never driven above the speed limit? never had a crafty spliff, etc etc etc? Course not, cos we're all Human. So shut up!
Jeeze. 🙄
Cup of tea, anyone? Kettle's on....
Ah the meeting of two bell ends. It's rarely pretty.
Shame the guy has reproduced.
Fred TBH I'm with thegreatape on this. PC Stouts mistake was allowing himself to be bamboozled, and it made him look like a shit copper to be honest. I don't see why he should have to quote every word, but he needs to have enough in his armoury to be able to arrest or ticket those who need to be. It was a basic fail.
How d'you know if the copper has children?
thegreatape - Member
so why is a coppers word worth more than a member of the publics! i don't expect there's an answer.
Ultimately it would be down to the magistrate to decide who they believed.
so i'd still be ****ed if the copper was lying! ( lets not kid our selves that some coppers will and do lie)
i've seen how the old boy network works!
don't get me wrong i've dealt with some great coppers! (i was recently a witness to a road fatality) but also dealt with arse holes who try to put words in your mouth...
What a time waster, Police have got better things to do than be outwitted by law students, he's not setting a good example to his child jumping red lights or law breaking.
After PC Stout should of arrested him. He could of then legally seized the camera under section 19 of PACE as it probably recorded the evidence of Mr cyclist riding through the red traffic light. I think PC Stout was having a bad day and hindsight is a wonderful thing.
So I assume he can still be prosecuted, someone notify the Police.
Copper should have known better and the guy is a tool.
Now for fun place yourself in one of those two categories, be honest!
😉
alot of people seem to be missing the point more so - the chap doesnt claim to have NOT run a red light, he just cleverly (winds up) makes the copper look foolish and in the end the red light is irrelevant to what they are arguing about 😆
im still sure if the camera had not of been there then it would be a totally totally different story.....
in the end as elfin says the copper ends up making a lunge for him, which is far far far worse, and discredits him totally as he knows he is being made a fool of......
I was visibly cringing while I watched that.
I felt sorry for the copper because they tend not to sit and read PACE (or other relevant legislation) itself, rather the guidance issued to them which flows from the legislation. So, despite the fact that most police won't know the exact section of every statute, they understand the basis of the law and whether or not an offence has been committed (which when you think about it is correct, the police are simply there to "police" and charge where they consider appropriate, it's then up the the PF/CPS/judiciary/lawyers to decide whether an offence was actually committed, the police are just a witness at that point).
As for the "student of the law". From my own experiences, there were only 2 types of people at law school who would ever use such a grotesque phrase - mature students and total knobs.
Mature students, for some reason I will never understand, from the moment they stepped into the library on the first day, considered themselved to be lawyers. Unusual and highly amusing, especially when they offered their "opinion" on a recently decided case which made it into the Times Law Report that week, generally to a lecturer and in front of 100 other law students.
Total knobs - they were total knobs before they got to law school and will be total knobs for the rest of their lives. In fact, it wouldn't have matter what they studied or where they worked, they are just knobs. However, law school has an uncanny knack of bringing out an even higher level of knobbishness in total knobs. I suffered listening to their guff for 6 years in two jurisdictions so I consider myself an expert in identifying them 😀
The way I see it, the cop pulled over the cyclist for a (probably) legitimate reason. He was then met by a wall of verbal diarrhea by a total knob, which made him flap and he lost his way. The policeman could have handled the situation better if he was more confident in his understanding of the law, but the total knob threw him off balance and he doubted himself.
If that had been any of the number of the police I have had the pleasure of working with/being stopped by, he would have been detained quicker than you can say "bugger off matey"
What Peterfile said.
The guy jumps a red light (nicely edited out of his video) PC most likely has to give chase (on a bike) He is clearly panting, so must have had to catch up etc, then the RLJ spouts some sh1te at him and doesn't let him speak, (standard arse wipe tactic) PC still getting his breath back and his thinking in order, still being bombarded with more verbal dog sh1t, PC made one mistake by getting pissed off, (I know I would have punched RLJ a few minutes earlier)
The RLJ is pure kn0b, the PC imo would have let him off with a short bit of advice about RLJ and the dangers if he just shut up but no this guy was actively looking for an argument. Karma will bite him in the ass when he gets splatted under a bus or takes out a pedestrian with his RLJ antics. The camera he hides behind will indeed be his down fall.
Tool.
Ps, you try talking in a logical coherent manner after riding, Try to have a proper debate at the top of climb you've just raced up I bet you don't make as much sense as you would like.
Guy was a d1ck and the PC rose to it unfortunately.
Ps, you try talking in a logical coherent manner after riding, Try to have a proper debate at the top of climb you've just raced up I bet you don't make as much sense as you would like.
The "tool" managed it didn't he?
Are you a copper too then?
What a bellend
I agree with the previous comments that both parties were indeed dip sh1ts. But some cops really need to be educated in conversing with the public which is an important part of their job.
I had the tables turned recently, I was happily cycling along a narrow two lane road, safely overtaking about 7 or 8 parked cars. A police car comes along in the other direction and narrowly misses my as I had to swerve and almost hit one of the parked car. Fortunately, after having picked up the Sunday papers, I see same copper getting out the car and walking into the church yard. At that point the devil in me takes over and I felt my civic duty rise up and I suggested to the officer that they should lead by example and should not think they own the road.... Officer number 2 *(who wasn't even in the car) chimed in suggesting it was all my fault, didn't - so as expected they closed ranks in a heart beat. I went on to converse politely with officer number 1, suggesting that the highway code suggests to give a cyclist a full lane, the officer "wasn't going to have a conversation with me" and turned and walked away. Quick call the next day to the local police office, spoke with the Chief who didn't seem too pleased with officer number 1 and suggested training would be appropriate...... All I wanted was the officer to recognize they were driving like a tool, could have caused an accident, however willing to offer an apology, bad judgement, was a million miles away, had a bad day etc etc. Result, less respect for the police in general.....
The tool may well have had a nice head start..
No am not a PC and would it matter if I was? No it wouldn't.
Regardless of a few bad eggs I respect them and believe they do in the main a good job. A very difficult job at that and one that I could never do.
I don't expect everyone to think highly of them but I'm glad we have them in our society.
No am not a PC and would it matter if I was? No it wouldn't.
Yes it would as you were advocating violence in the event that someone got the better of you in a verbal tete a tete. I think you reveal yourself quite openly here.