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

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/legal-system-s/police-s/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-enter-private-property-and-seize-goods-s/#h-your-rights-if-you-re-searched

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.

It’s section 164 of the RTA.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/164

@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 Member

Has 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.

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.

Can empathise. Thank **** I only have machines and work management to deal with, I got out of dealing with mouth breathers years ago.

In all seriousnessit looks like the guy simply doesn’t know how to deal with a smart arse and is just losing it. It’s not professional, it deserves further attention but it doesn’t make him a bad person. I’d probably have tazeres the gobshite and left him sitting in a pile of his own faeces long before that was resolved. Needless to say I’m not a people person.

Don’t think the driver did anything wrong at all, police totally out of order (as I’ve come to expect) and the amount of posts on here suggesting otherwise is ridiculous. It just shows how the police expect you to behave and if you don’t make their job really easy then they (unlawfully) take their anger out on somebody. I don’t think I’d have done anything different to the driver other than staying a bit calmer (which is difficult in the circumstances), and would be taking this as far as I could. Wrongful arrest for a start.

Don’t think the driver did anything wrong at all,

Wrong. He refused lawful requests from the police. he was antagonistic and rude.

Its not a wrongful arrest. the cop has that power to arrest or to detain someone while he sorts out what is what

You need a bit of a life lesson. Your idea of what a cop can and cannot do is a long way from the truth and you would be laughed out of any lawyers offivce if you tried to claim wrongful arrest for that.

yes the cop lost it and thats not good but the driver behaved appallingly and was lucky not to have his arrest continued, taken down to the station and charged with offenses.

Charged with what offenses exactly? Or just a random selection as a punishment for being unhelpful? “I’ve had a bad day, and you are rude and a bit of a smartarse. As such I am arresting you and you will be taken to the station and charged with TV License evasion, possession of Quaaludes with intent to supply and aggravated assault.”

I wouldn’t have handled it like that. The driver’s lack of compliance totally threw him and he lost control there and then, resorting to threats of violence and tickets.

He’s not allowed to use force to merely to make someone comply. That’s contrary to S3 Humans Rights Act – freedom from torture & inhumane treatment.

Use of force is governed by numerous bits of legislation:
Common Law (usually defending someone, himself or property)
S117 PACE
S3 Criminal Law Act
Are the principle sources, though other acts have powers attached too (immigration act, terrorism act etc.)

It’s sledgehammer & walnut here & completely unnecessary.

He is allowed to stop someone driving a motor vehicle on a road and S163 RTA 1988 requires the driver to stop when requested by a Police Officer in uniform.

S164 then requires a driver to produce his docs when requested if the constabulary suspects an offence (not limited to docs offence – any Road Traffic offence). The 7 day thing is virtually unused these days as IT has improved to the point that you can usually bottom any enquiry very quickly at the roadside.

However, that needs the cooperation of the driver. If the driver doesn’t cooperate by giving enough information to carry out those roadside checks then they have clearly committed an offence of failing to produce his docs (not police obstruction). To explain, the offence for which you would be reported would be failing to produce when requested (I.e. the initial roadside request). Also, without evidence of any docs you would be reported for those offences too. For example, you’d be reported for failing to produce and for having no insurance, licence, MOT, VEL etc.

S24 of PACE gives the power of arrest so therefore S117 of PACE means the cop may use reasonable force to the officer, if necessary to exercise this power.

I have a couple of colleagues who speak to every errant driver like scum… it’s embarrassing & requires constant smoothing over. I’ve sort of got to the stage where I think to my colleagues “you’re on your **** own here chum”, but total embarrassment gets the better of me and I end up smoothing things over.

Police aren’t perfect – never have been & never will be – they’re human and cock up just like humans. However, they’re also meant to set an example & that starts with how you actually speak to someone. There is nothing more satisfying than playing back the body worn video in court and you’re totally reasonable, polite & even friendly and you’re met with someone being an arms chair lawyer or simply obnoxious.

Just as a Cop should know the law and the powers under which he is operating, it is incumbent upon every driver to know the law too. So look at the wording of S163 carefully:

“A person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform”

Note that it does not say “a constable in uniform may stop any mechanically propelled vehicle…”

The wording is important because it places the responsibility on the driver to do what the RTA says… this is pedantic but this is the way the law is. It is the drivers responsibility to follow the rules and if they don’t it is they who break the law.

Sorry for the lengthy post… it’s late & ive just cracked open my new bottle of Woodford Reserve…

Is the man in the car acting entitled?

Yes.

He IS entitled to his civil liberties and a police officer saying he’s going to “smash his window in” and give him a “ticket for something” is horrible.

the correct answer to the police when being stopped is always ” yes sir” then the interactions go smoothly.

My word, this is terrible. You can be polite and stand up for your rights.

Thank you Mildred

Hugo – its intended to mean the correct approach not literally

Arguing with cops never ends well. Being polite and civil has got me off several fines

Loads of these type of interactions on YouTube. Both sides are not right and could be better.

If I’m stopped I always immediately get out of the car which from experience the police don’t like either but I’d rather converse at the side of the road face to face. I’m always polite but I question everything and would expect the police officer to know the law inside out and be able to explain it in layman’s terms.

Police are not the enemy of the general public but neither is the general public the enemy of the police.

Thanks for the explanation @mildred. I was wondering if I could get your take on what ‘any reason’ actually means. I see it written various places that an officer can stop a car for any reason but does that mean literally any reason, any legitimate reason, or no reason?

It’s pedantic but I think when it comes to the law you have to be pedantic. If any reason actually means literally any reason or no reason then how do you stop people getting pulled over for driving while black?

If any reason means any legitimate reason then does that mean that there has to be something suspicious about either the vehicle or the driving in order to be allowed to pull a car over?

If a car is pulled over because the officer doesn’t understand the rules properly does that mean that the officer has stopped a car without a legitimate reason and if so what happens then?

Sorry for all the pedantic questions but vehicle stops seem like a bit of a minefield for all involved.

If a car is pulled over because the officer doesn’t understand the rules properly does that mean that the officer has stopped a car without a legitimate reason and if so what happens then?

May I suggest that that question’s a bit loaded? He DID stop the car for a legitimate reason (unless he could see the roof of the car before he made the stop) – the driver made a claim about the colour that, at the very least, seems not to be as clear-cut as he portrayed it.

I’d still love to see the start of the encounter.

Sorry for all the pedantic questions but vehicle stops seem like a bit of a minefield for all involved.

Officer stops you, you wind your window down and answer his questions, no-one loses, minefield avoided and everyone gets on their way quicker and happier.

And that’s fine so long as you trust the police. Many people don’t.

The problem with winding your window down is that the officer can then say, ‘I smell marijuana.’ If you keep your window wound up he can’t.

Not everyone has had the same experiences with the police that you have had so I think you should try to see things from others point of view.

Here’s how I’ve always understood it.

Police can stop any vehicle for the purpose of checking that the driver has an appropriate license and insurance.

The practicality of this is that they find out who’s driving the vehicle, because you can’t not tell them – either verbally or by showing your licence – who you are.

They don’t have to have done anything wrong for the police to be allowed to do that. Perhaps this is where the concept of ‘they don’t need a reason’ has come from?

On top of that you have all the scenarios where there might be an additional reason why the police might stop a car – a driver who sees the police and quickly goes a different direction, a car slowly driving round an industrial estate in the early hours, a vehicle being driven at 20mph on an empty 40mph road, or a car that’s colour doesn’t match the DVLA record for its registration.

Apart from potentially the last one, none of those things are against the law, but are all legitimate reasons why the police might want to see who is in that vehicle – respectively, why have they tried to avoid us?, are they scouting this place out to break in?, are they drunk, lost, or half blind and can’t see properly?. Have they broken any laws – there’s every chance they haven’t. Is it worth checking what’s going on – absolutely.

A few nights ago I stopped a pick up towing a trailer with a quad bike on it. That’s not an offence. But we’ve had a number of quad bikes stolen from farms/estates in our area this year, so I wanted to check this one wasn’t. Explained to the driver why I had stopped him, checked the pick up and his licence, he’s the DVLA keeper, his vehicle is registered to a farm, and that’s in the direction he was going, so everything is fine. Took a few minutes. He’s not done anything wrong, but I don’t think I’m intruding in his human rights by stopping him, it’s just normal policing.

Officer stops you, you wind your window down and answer his questions

Presumably his questions that pertain to the stop? S163/S164 up there ^ ie identifying yourself and providing the means to verify MOT/license/VED/ownership online. Anything else presumbly comes under your right to not share information with random inquisitive Police?

@mildred

S24 of PACE gives the power of arrest so therefore S117 of PACE means the cop may use reasonable force to the officer, if necessary to exercise this power.

Does this mean the Police can use reasonable force to obtain the S164 info during a routine traffic stop? I.e. you/they can justify smashing a window in if a driver of a stopped and turned off car doesn’t want to get out to ‘fall down the stairs in the back of the Range Rover’ (not literally <sigh>)?

Genuinely curious.

And that’s fine so long as you trust the police. Many people don’t.

The problem with winding your window down is that the officer can then say, ‘I smell marijuana.’ If you keep your window wound up he can’t.

Not everyone has had the same experiences with the police that you have had so I think you should try to see things from others point of view.

I fully accept that, without in any way agreeing that that is the case in this instance. I note also that the driver has witheld his name but also that Dorset police have not received a complaint from him about it, despite the driver having gone to the media about his treatment. Make of that what you will.

The driver has a right to be a dork, but in so doing, it will likely have an effect on the putcome of the stop. In this case, it was a really bad outcome and the policeman was a dork too, maybe the driver’s been a righteous uncooperative knobjockey before and he’s come away with a video he can post to his Tiktok buddies about stickin it to da man. But I would be willing to bet that if he HAD wound the window down and said “good evening officer, how can I help?”, the conversation would probably not subsequently contained the phrase “you’re getting a ticket for something”. What do you think?

Genuinely curious.

No you’re not.

@thegreatape

Police can stop any vehicle for the purpose of checking that the driver has an appropriate license and insurance.

So from that I understand that an officer can pull over a vehicle even if there is nothing suspicious.

My concern here is that gives the police a great deal of leeway to pull people over for driving while black.

I always assumed that there had to be some reason for suspicion before pulling someone over so that the occupant couldn’t then claim they were being pulled over because they were a POC.

What do you think?

We don’t know.

speculation
/ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/
noun

The forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
“there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit”

pondo
Full Member
Genuinely curious.

No you’re not.

@pondo I know it’s panto season or as much as Covid-19 allows but, oh yes I am. I’ll let you know when I’m not ta. 👍

We don’t know.

That’s why I asked “what do you think”.

One lesson I have learnt is a little civility goes a long way.

Who are you and what have you done with tj ??

🙂