Good policing or just invasive?

Guest101

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That's advocating a list of actions to be taken as soon as you're stopped and before you have any way of knowing the officers' attitudes. It also categorically advises "filming the encounter" in every case - not "be ready to film if they're a*holes" but "You can film the police. Do so" and "Film the encounter" i was responding to a post where the police were aggressive. Be ready to film the encounter may be a more appropriate response, granted



But you've already said (see first quote) that you start "flexing your rights" before you can possibly know how they're going to act.flexing your rights does not have to be confrontational these are rights for a reason, you can do so passively



But that's completely contrary to the advice you give in your first post. If you're going to try and back out of a corner you've built, start by removing the original bad advice it wasn't bad advice, in the context of the OP, but a more toned down general version may be appropriate

Reply above in red

sinbad182

That's a pretty spectacular climb down!

Captain_Flack.

Guest101 wrote: »

I actually agree with you, the majority are normal people doing a stressful job. And when they do it well I have no need to flex my rights, and I don't.

The principle is, as the op wrote, rude and aggressive policing. If you seek peace, prepare for war. Know your rights, should you need to use them. You'd be best learning yours.;)

Vast majority if the time I don't film the police and will act in a friendly manner, if they are doing likewise. Get stopped often do you?

A minority give the police a bad name, which is where I'm coming from

:santa2::santa2::santa2::santa2::santa2:

Guest101

Not wasting any more time on trolls bye.

Captain_Flack.

Guest101 wrote: »

Not wasting any more time on trolls bye.

Congratulations, finally a sensible post from you.:D

Jamie_Carter

New_and_Improved_Me wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:

You mis-understood, I wasn’t complaining about the actual pulling over for fog lights....

But rather their attitude....

Plus it was my front fogs i had on....not the back....

I could be wrong (It's been known to happen) but that last time i checked my Fog lights are at the front and break at the back.... :)

All cars have rear fog lights, only some have front fog lights.

Try turning your lights on, then switching all your fog lights on, then get out of your car and have a look at which lights are on. You should know the controls for a vehicle before driving it.

Jamie_Carter

New_and_Improved_Me wrote: »

You must be a copper....because the the exact word he used....

Almost felt like saying...'Its been a while since anyone has said that to me'....lol

Nope, I'm not a copper. What other word would you use??

Joe_Horner

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

All cars have rear fog lights.

Almost all. My '69 Triumph and '72 Daf don't and my partner's '74r Daf has them as an optional extra

Jamie_Carter

Guest101 wrote: »

Didn't say they were unlawful. My advice would have eliminated the attitude too.

No, it would most likely have antagonised them. At which point they would be likely to go over your car with a fine toothed comb.

Jamie_Carter

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Almost all. My '69 Triumph and '72 Daf don't and my partner's '74r Daf has them as an optional extra

Ok, I did actually think after I made the post that vehicles that pre date the law on fog lights may not have them.