Stopped by police...

Franz_Ferdinand

Car_54 wrote: »

In the old days, the police could go to court and say "When stopped, the accused said 'It's a fair cop, guv. You've got me bang to rights.'" and that could be taken as a confession.

They now have to caution the suspect "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

Anything said by the suspect before that warning is given is inadmissable. It does not apply to anything said by the police, or anyone else.

You're missing one word out there. Maybe

Zola.

They sound like wind up merchants

Stoke

If you couldn't see his badge number I would have asked for it. I don't trust coppers at the best of times to be quite frank.

m0bov

No badgey no stoppy!

Franz_Ferdinand

m0bov wrote: »

No badgey no stoppy!

So how do you see their ID without stopping?

Stoke

Franz_Ferdinand wrote: »

So how do you see their ID without stopping?

I think his point is, if the police is not willing to display his badge you are within your rights to 'f right off' out of there and to be honest, I agree. Police are not above the law, even if they think they are, and if I cannot identify a police officer quickly I don't feel safe to talk to him to be quite frank. There's enough corruption in the police force without giving them an excuse for it.

Franz_Ferdinand

Stoke wrote: »

I think his point is, if the police is not willing to display his badge you are within your rights to 'f right off' out of there and to be honest, I agree. Police are not above the law, even if they think they are, and if I cannot identify a police officer quickly I don't feel safe to talk to him to be quite frank. There's enough corruption in the police force without giving them an excuse for it.

Have you experienced this corruption further than reading the Daily Mail?

Joe_Horner

Franz_Ferdinand wrote: »

Have you experienced this corruption further than reading the Daily Mail?

It's not really about corruption, though, is it?

Just as the Police constantly advise people NOT to engage with callers at home claiming to be from official organisations without suitable ID (and even then not to without checking if there's any doubt), so a policeman is expected to clearly identify himself AND show evidence and they'd be quite happy for you to refuse to engage until they do.

Otherwise every crook out there would be impersonating policemen instead of gas / electricity / council employees.

Franz_Ferdinand

Joe_Horner wrote: »

It's not really about corruption, though, is it?

Just as the Police constantly advise people NOT to engage with callers at home claiming to be from official organisations without suitable ID (and even then not to without checking if there's any doubt), so a policeman is expected to clearly identify himself AND show evidence and they'd be quite happy for you to refuse to engage until they do.

Otherwise every crook out there would be impersonating policemen instead of gas / electricity / council employees.

I'm not the one claiming corruption.

I agree he should have produced a warrant card. However the op was happy to interact with him without seeing one.

There are plenty offences reported where the offender is a bogus police officer. However they have worked out how to get round the warrant card issue by phoning the victim.

Stoke

Franz_Ferdinand wrote: »

Have you experienced this corruption further than reading the Daily Mail?

I don't read the Daily Mail, chump.... even so what a dumb remark. You don't need to read the DM to know that it's happening and has been for about 40 years. Guessing you're a PC eh? Sorry Constable. Don't track my IP.

And actually, while I've not been partisan to say the widespread corruption that has been exposed by Hillsborough (and would be exposed by say, Orgreave), yes, I've personally witnessed police corruption on a ground level, a number of years ago when I worked in a pub. Thanks hun.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

It's not really about corruption, though, is it?

Just as the Police constantly advise people NOT to engage with callers at home claiming to be from official organisations without suitable ID (and even then not to without checking if there's any doubt), so a policeman is expected to clearly identify himself AND show evidence and they'd be quite happy for you to refuse to engage until they do.

Otherwise every crook out there would be impersonating policemen instead of gas / electricity / council employees.

He's calling me out because I said that I wouldn't trust a policeman who wouldn't show his badge number. I stand by that remark. I doubt I'd trust a policeman even if he did show his badge number, just like I don't trust any random individual on a wim.... that said, any policeman who is keen to hide his identity has almost certainly got something to hide, a bit like that bent copper who smashed up that newsagent in London. He seemed to like hiding his badge number, I wonder why?