if you do not comply with lawful instructions which include " open the window"
Is a copper also allowed to make up charges,
A cop does not charge. he arrests on suspicion but as far as I can see the cop did not. He could have arrested him for the nice catchall " obstructing an officer in the course of his duty"
I am not a cop so not 100% clear on all this but its obvious some of you have no idea how widespread a cops discretion and powers are
The rule seems to be that if you change the predominant colour then you need to change it on V5C.
Didn’t the driver in the video say only his roof was the colour on V5C so he was actually incorrect an the predominant colour had been changed.
That policeman needs to pull him over again and get the taser out for wasting his time.
This thread hasn't reached a satisfactorily pedantic level for my liking yet so I'm going to throw this in.
My understanding is that the DVLA is only interested in the chassis colour. That excludes the bonnet, doors, and boot since they are ancillary and not part of the chassis.
Therefore, if the roof is still the original colour and the area of the roof is larger than the wings then the majority of the chassis is the original colour.
Seems like the kind of thing the DVLA should probably clear up.
Cop should’ve used pepper spray. From my extensive research (watching Jackass) it’s much more painful than a taser
A cop has the power to use force to make people comply
So if you don't produce your documents because you don't have them with you, he's allowed to baton you to unconsciousness while you try and crawl home to get them? That isn't how the privilege (not power, - authority under the law to exercise a privilege) of use of force works.
He could have arrested him for the nice catchall
For contempt of cop, which happens all too often despite not actually existing.
Which is exactly why we are in the situation we are. You have to push back on authorities which act unreasonably. Threatening to give him a ticket for something which will be found or made up as required is also not legal.
You might expect that coppers should understand the laws they are enforcing but they don't. We have ample evidence of that. See stop and search, taking photographs in public places etc.
My understanding is that the DVLA is only interested in the chassis colour. That excludes the bonnet, doors, and boot since they are ancillary and not part of the chassis.
I was wondering, based on the coppers stance, if he pulls over every commercial vehicle that is wrapped in "Bob the plumber" graphics and pictures of plumbing accoutrements. Would the Dvla have it down under colour as garish pictures of shitters with Bob on them? Does he pull over every single one of them for not matching the colour on file? The "colour doesn't match" thing only goes so far if not.
Not watched the video because it'll probably just get me riled up.
These kind of threads always bring out the "if you've got nothing to hide..." lot. "Just comply and call the officer Sir" etc.
You snivelling little sycophants. Where's your self respect? Shall we allow the police to set up road blocks to search commuters for marijuana every morning? CCTV in your home to make sure no crimes are being committed? After all, if you've nothing to hide... Of course, one should always be polite when dealing with anybody, not just the police. But it's perfectly reasonable to know and assert your rights. It should not be made easy for the police to stop and question the public. In a free society, authoritarianism should be fought tooth and nail. Like with the 'no comment' tactic, it's a reasonable and wise response. If the police want to accuse you of a crime, they need to put in the work and show you what proof they have. Not just hope you say something stupid that they can spin to incriminate you.
Not having a crack at the police, they're human too and do a tough job so not saying the copper should be prosecuted or anything, but from what I've read so far should absolutely lose his job.
Thank god for mobile phone cameras.
You snivelling little sycophants.
It should not be made easy for the police to stop and question the public.
Huh. Why not?
and the law requires you to identify yourself
No it doesn't.
Fill your boots...
https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights
It should not be made easy for the police to stop and question the public.
Or rather "It should not be made easy for the police to stop and question the public without a good reason".
In this case there was a reason, in cases such as many stop and search there is no reason.
Oh my gawd, this little non-event has made the TV news! Dorset Police are going to "act". Golly gosh
Agressive policing? Yeah right!
Clearly no one on this forum has had to deal with the old RUC or the B-Specials or the Brits or the Black and Tans or plain clothes Garda or Special Branch or The SAS or the Paras or The UVF or INLA or The UDR or indeed the local Battalion of the 'RA.
Oh my gawd, this little non-event has made the TV news! Dorset Police are going to “act”. Golly gosh
Dear god. The Dorset version of Serpico.
I am not a cop so not 100% clear on all this but its obvious some of you have no idea how widespread a cops discretion and powers are
And once again we find ourselves in a position where the situation isn't clear but you're 100% certain that whatever it is, you're right and everyone else is wrong.
You should consider becoming a cop. You'd suit driving a black & white.
Jeez, there's some pedantic whataboutery on this thread.
“ obstructing an officer in the course of his duty”
A couple of weeks ago, my Bipolar was keeping me awake. A bit manic. No sleep for two days. I went for a walk in the early hours of the morning. Two policemen in a car went past, u turned, stopped by me and got out.
Hi
Good Morning. Where are you off to?
Nowhere really. Just walking.
Why? It’s the middle of the night.
Can’t sleep.
What’s your name?
Why do you ask?
We have a right to know!
Know you don’t...
Yes we do. What’s your address?
I’m not going to tell you
What’s your [b]name?[b]...
To and fro for about 10 mins...
Was I obstructing an officer in the course of his duty?
Agressive policing? Yeah right!
Clearly no one on this forum...
Wow.
The existence of bad things does not justify less bad things.
The cop was aggressive and unprofessional, this is undeniable. Sure, he may have been provoked by a bit of an arse, but it's literally his job to deal with people who might turn out to be arses.
Comparing a traffic cop to paramilitary groups as a defence is beyond ludicrous. Godwin is rolling in his grave.
The copper is gonna get lectured by manangement, but the prick in the car is not satisfied and is going to prosecute privately.
Even Better Than That! It was followed by a story about a local mountain biker who won a Junior WC race and that was actually [i]interesting![/i] - an international race winner from a place with no hills at all (Fareham) good lad! Ethan Craik, he's called.
Was I obstructing an officer in the course of his duty?
No, you were perfectly within your rights. This bit I do know. You're not obliged to answer those questions, or even break stride, unless they're detaining you.
After 10 minutes of that I'd have been making a harassment complaint the following day.
And once again we find ourselves in a position where the situation isn’t clear but you’re 100% certain that whatever it is, you’re right and everyone else is wrong
Exactly the words I was looking for!
Police and military jobs attract similar types of people.
Mostly poorly educated and with authoritarian and right wing views.
When they act badly, which is often, they receive support from likeminded people.
Lets support our brave boys.
copa
Free Member
Police and military jobs attract similar types of people.
Mostly poorly educated and with authoritarian and right wing views.
When they act badly, which is often, they receive support from likeminded people.
Lets support our brave boys.
Thank you. Very consise summary and spot on 👍
Didn't watch all of it but the copper came across as the idiot to me
With regard to the post above by Monksie.....how did it end at the 10 minute point? Did you tell them who you were or did they give in and let you walk off?
Two people acting like dicks.
That would be my executive summary of the situation too.
Police and military jobs attract similar types of people.
Mostly poorly educated and with authoritarian and right wing views.
When they act badly, which is often, they receive support from likeminded people.
Lets support our brave boys.
I know a few left wing cops who'd be pretty offended by that. Though they tend to be quieter than the right wing ones, I'll give you that
If I did you’d be getting a ticket for something.
After a thorough tasering.
Urination in a public place would be a good start.
If you are in a car then they do have the right to ascertain your identity to make sure you have a license!
the caricature above of cops is totally wrong in my experience on both sides of the law.
One lesson I have learnt is a little civility goes a long way. Talked myself out of several fines over the years
Thank you for the confirmation Cougar. I was interested in a certain person’s assurances that the police can use force to make you comply which is, very clearly, a load of rubbish.
Also, thank you for the interest in the outcome of my event.
I wasn’t trying to be a “smart arse” deliberately to wind the police up despite this accusation that one of them made. Having been Sectioned a couple of times with the assistance of the Police, I really wanted to stay off of the radar.
I asked them eventually if they had reasonable suspicions that I had committed an offence and was I being detained? Both responses were negative so I advised them I would be on my lawful way and off I went. I don’t think they were particularly happy.
No force was exerted by the Police to force me to comply. Still a little manic now but I’m managing to get some sleep so I haven’t had any further interactions.
My take on the video. The driver was within his rights to do what he was doing although he could have kept his calm better and the Policeman was very much out of order and had a duty to keep his calm better. “You’re getting a ticket for something!” is pretty damning.
If you are in a car then they do have the right to ascertain your identity to make sure you have a license
They can ask but you do not have to identify yourself
you don’t have to say anything or provide any information about yourself such as your name or address, and the officer must tell you this
https://www.gov.scot/publications/guide-stop-search-scotland/
you do not have to say anything or give the police any information about yourself if you don’t want to
So, according to TJ, the police would've had every right to kneel on monksie's neck until he complied/died/gave them his name/respected their authority?
So, according to TJ, the police would’ve had every right to kneel on monksie’s neck until he complied/died/gave them his name/respected their authority?
I'll hazard a guess that that wasn't what he was saying, but it seems to have got a lot of people frothing
Both being dicks but surely everyone should be concerned at the thought process behind 'you're getting a ticket for something'.
Relatively minor you could say but the fact that when angry he jumped to that is pretty telling. And his conflict resolution training needs some serious revisiting.
YouTube lawyer here... AIUI, under section 163 of the Road Traffic act, you must identify yourself when stopped whilst driving and asked to by the Police. You must also produce evidence of MOT, insurance and driving licence when asked.
It is widely recognised people may not carry this in the vehicle (it is often specifically advised against) and a 7 day producer will be issued. Again, AIUI, this does not override the requirement to produce when asked and in theory, you could be prosecuted for not doing so. In practice, this doesn't happen as it's recognised it's unreasonable to prosecute people for complying with contradictory Police advice...
So, according to TJ, the police would’ve had every right to kneel on monksie’s neck until he complied/died/gave them his name/respected their authority?
Yes, that's exactly what he said.
Fud.
Ta squirrelking - nice use of "fud" as well!
Yes, fair point. I was being facetious and dramatic.
Quick version- both might be dicks, but civilians are allowed to be dicks, policemen in the course of their duty are not. The crazy mood swinging from "I will smash in your window" with baton in hand to 2 seconds later saying "I don't know, you might try and run me down" in a totally civil voice, to "Well I don't know what the law is even though I'm using the colour thing as the whole justification for the stop"... Makes me think that actually he was just having an absolute bastard of a day in a bastard of a year and completely lost it.
The guy in the car is on this thread, isn’t he?!
Both sockets, could easily have been avoided. Police man loses because he has to behave impeccably. Car socket should lose due the indignation over something so trivial.
I think he was right to pull the car over, if your car had been cloned or you bike stolen and sprayed a different colour but the rest matched your description, you would want the police to act.
@Rich_s Aye ta. IANAL... I've just watched hundreds of those vids where the argument starts with the Police (mis) quoting why the potential scally should provide licence/insurance/mot... Worth remembering when it's mis quoted to you (us) but obv we'll just come over as a smart arse expecting the Police to know why they're stopping you and actually quoting the correct piece of legislation...
If you are in a car then they do have the right to ascertain your identity to make sure you have a license!
They do but that's a small subset of what you were asserting earlier.
@boblo - that is my understanding also, aside from:
It is widely recognised people may not carry this in the vehicle (it is often specifically advised against) and a 7 day producer will be issued. Again, AIUI, this does not override the requirement to produce when asked and in theory, you could be prosecuted for not doing so.
If you do not have your documents on you then you get a caution at the roadside for failing to provide and you're issued with a 'producer' to evidence the caution. If you subsequently produce valid documents at a station within the next seven days, this caution is dropped.
Has anyone found anything to support the driver's assertation about not having to inform the DVLA because the roof hasn't changed colour? Again, sorry if it's been posted and I missed it.
pondo
Full MemberHas anyone found anything to support the driver’s assertation about not having to inform the DVLA because the roof hasn’t changed colour?
The trouble with this is, the DVLA are inconsistent. But they have definitely ruled previously that you need to tell them if the car "predominantly" changes colour, with no obvious definition of what that means. However with Smart cars, they've ruled that the tridion- the structural shell- is the only colour that counts for registration, and that's basically the roof and the rear quarters, so that apparently is the closest thing to an official definition of what "predominantly" means. If you replace all of the painted panels that doesn't change the colour.
Supposedly that same logic was applied to some Polo "harlequin" cars, but not all- some people were told they had to be "multi" and so apparently were some factory harli cars, while others were registered with the colour of the roof/rear quarters/sills. But then, that might be a myth because so many harlequin vws aren't factory.
In both cases, it's basically the bits that can be unbolted and replaced that were discounted from the colour, while the bits that are inherent/structural and can't be easily swapped are what counted
Guidance issued by the DVLA on wraps says that if the entire car's colour is changed do they consider it a colour change. It doesn't specifically say that if 90% of the car is changed with a wrap that they DON'T consider it a change but it's implied IMO
"By covering the entire vehicle in a coloured adhesive/vinyl wrap, it is the DVLA’s view that the colour change should be recorded."
My motorbike is registered as "multi" because it's green and silver, though, even though it's 90% green. When I called them up to ask what it should be, they basically said "could be either in that case, we don't care", so I went with multi because that meant I could also fit different colour panels when I felt like it (it had a set of cheap crashable trackday plastics)
I don't think from the video that we know that only the roof is still the original colour? He says "look at the roof" but it doesn't follow that only the roof is still unchanged. I'm pretty curious to see the car now!
FWIW I'm pretty sure that what he told the officer was wrong. But equally the officer responds "Well I don't know that" rather than "no that's not the law" so it doesn't really change the situation either way.
(and tbh stopping a multi-coloured car because it's not all the colour the DVLA thinks it is, when some of it is that colour, gets a bit more dubious I reckon. The obvious explanation for that would be a colour change or partial colour change rather than false plates or whatever)
Has anyone found anything to support the driver’s assertation about not having to inform the DVLA because the roof hasn’t changed colour?
I’ve had a little look and can’t find anything that specific on the DVLA website - just that if you change the colour of the car you must update your V5.
A couple of wrapping websites - for what they’re worth - advise that if you wrap your car you should notify the DVLA, but that partial wrapping eg. signwriting does not need to be notified.
I would consider a white van with a fair amount of colourful signwriting as still a white van. Conversely, a black car wrapped/repainted yellow but with the black roof left alone, to my mind is now a yellow car, not a black one. Plenty of cars now come with the option of a different coloured roof. Common sense would suggest that it’s a yellow car with a black roof, rather than a black car with a yellow-everything-except-the-roof.
But a definitive answer would require either clarification by the DVLA or be ruled upon in a court.