Destroyed Respect..

[Softus]

Big_Spark, you've addressed a post both to me and to an ex-forum member. I presume that you feel a similarity between the accusations coming from me and those that have been levelled at you before - if so, then the common denominator is you, being the person giving out misinformation and telling lies. If you don't like forum members telling you that you're wrong and that you're telling lies, then the best thing is for you to stop being wrong and to stop telling lies.

Regarding your claim that you never stated that the Police were acting unlawfully, you've hinted, quite strongly, that you believe the police are likely to reach beyond their legal powers and find ways to arrest people who simply irritate them. Since the police are not lawfully empowered to arrest people indiscriminately (since each arrest has to meet certain written conditions), the action of arrest as a reaction to a bolshy but otherwise law-abiding citizen (who, for example, looks at a policeman in a funny way and then refuses to give his identity) would indeed be unlawful. Whether or not you meant to suggest this is irrelevant - you've suggested it by unambiguous implication.

If one of your recent stories is to be believed, then your arrest for a motoring offence was about as lawful as the prosecution would have been in the public interest. This (if a true event) is a perfect example of an invalid, and therefore unlawful, arrest.

I have no idea why you're bringing corruption into the equation. You say that the topic is all about how the police exercise their powers, and you want everyone to share your concern. Well, the simple fact is that not everyone does, and I can't see any justification for your claim that we all need to.

Littering has always been an offence, and continues to be a non-arrestable offence. For this reason I agree that it's relevant, because the whole arrestable/non-arrestable argument can be extrapolated from the conclusion on this otherwise inconsequential point. Since you believe that it is arrestable, but are unable to refer to any statute of judgement that supports your opinion, then it's reasonable to conclude that you're wrong.

Regarding your assertion that I insult anyone who disagrees with me, you may wish to consider the breathtaking hypocrisy illustrated by the following posts:

as usual lately you are being a twonk

you are spineless.

Of course driving off from an accident is an arrestable offence you b****y fool, I suggest you try it and see how far you get.

I will not let a gutless fascist like you wind me up..I think your a pathetic excuse for a man and you simply make me laugh..

why don't you get a girlfriend or discover p**n films that involve humans

However I would call you a gutless fascist, typical of the type that like peaked caps, uniforms and cannot do anything by yourself

Jesus your a pathetic person on occasion.

Although I realise that you might have been directly addressing Jesus Christ at this juncture.

when will you stop posting as BAS does... perhaps only when you stop taking the pills??

your showing yourself to be a dozy s**

BTW, whether or I choose to discuss a topic is a matter for me, not you.

You still cannot admit your wrong.

I'm very happy to admit when I'm wrong, but only when I'm wrong. This is why I need hardly ever admit it. As I've posted earlier on this topic, I invite you to state clearly and concisely on which point you believe me to be wrong, so that everyone, including me, can understand your outlandish claim. If you're right, then I'll be happy to congratulate you on being right. Before you rush ahead though, I'd remind you about the "full load current" debacle and the "Highway Code" incident, since on both occasions you were convinced that I was wrong and then later conceded that you were the one who was talking b*llocks.

You've published some words that you say come from Hansard, and that you say were written by members of the judiciary. This seems to be another of your made up facts. Hansard, in case you still don't know, is the official record of Parliamentary debate, and although I confess that I don't know for sure, it's intuitively unlikely that the state pays the huge sums of money that it would cost for the judiciary to do rudimentary clerical work.

I don't know who you're attempting to lecture on the definition of English Law, but I can assure you that you know an awful lot less then I do about it. The particularly comical sequence is the following one:

How is the law created?
English law has been developed over centuries and consists of 'Common Law,' 'Statutory Law' and most recently 'European Union' Law.

...
As Hansard is written by sitting Judges and other Legal experts, I think their interpretation superceds all of our definitions and interpretations combined, and even Hansard acknowledges that the Police are able to arrest a person for virtually anything..

So, after quoting from a text that defines English Law, you've introduced the wholly new concept of 'Hansard Law', which you believe takes precedent over everything.

I'm struggling to understand how even you, one of the most staggeringly crazy liars on the forum, can believe this latest bit of nonsense.

 

[Big_Spark]

Softus, I am now pig sick of your blatant ****.

If you want to meet in person to resoolve this then I am more than happy, but I think forum members are sick of you attacking everything that is posted by me. I have said nothing that is untrue in this thread and I am tired of your relentless attacks. I have tried to remain calm and not lose my rag on here, but I am finding you increasingly annoying.

The reason I referred to you as Softus/BAS is simply because I see a similarity in the posting style and personality types, arrogant self important trolls who believe anyone they don't like can never be right and then do not have the dangly bits to admit their error. I have a feeling that you and BAS may be the same person..although my opinion is no means conclusive on this.

You accuse me of lieing...about what???

Anything I have ever posted..except where I have stated I have posted in error or wrongly..I am able to support. Yes I have made myself look a bit foolish on occasion as personal pressures helped to cloud my judgement and I argued points without thinking about them clearly..and only too late realised that I had posted something incorrectly. I have NEVER lied.

I never said my arrest was unlawful, hence the statement about pleading guilty..what I complained about was the manner of my treatment for a traffic offence.

I have a statement I could scan onto the web which clearly shows that the arresting Police Officer actually LIED in his statement...I can prove this with a photograph because to start his statement how he has means he is able to see through a bank that is 40ft high, 1/4 mile long and coated in about 3ft of reinforced concrete and supports a four lane dual carriageway and two slip roads!!

However I was still guilty of going through a Red Light, as I have never denied or excused and was fully prepared to accept the punishment for this..but the CPS have made that a moot point. What I do about the statement is another matter. I have left that up to my solicitor.

Now I do not have to justify myself to you..my opinion of you I have stated before in this thread and cannot be bothered to repeat as your simply not worth the effort.

Moderator 4

This thread is close to being locked. Play like grown ups or it will be. No more warnings.

 

[Moz]

Fight ....Fight ......FIIIIIGHT ...lol

In the Blue corner we have roadrage sparky ...

an in the red corner we have wordsmith Softy .....

lets have a nice clean fight no rabbit punching .....

seconds out Round 1 .. DING.. DING ....

 

[Richardp]

someone throw the towel in before the thread gets locked, any old towel will do

 

[EddieCurrent]

I was pleased to read that your encounter with 'the law' worked out as it did Big Spark.

( and I know who my cash would be on ! )

 

[Richardp]

Oh yeah! did we get washed up on the seventh wave

 

[Softus]

Softus, I am now pig sick of your blatant s**t.

Not so sick that you didn't want to spend more time bleating an answer.

If you want to meet in person to resoolve this then I am more than happy,

If you can't write down your thoughts correctly, then you would stand no chance in a face-to-face conversation. Or is your suggestion just a veiled threat from a bully?

...but I think forum members are sick of you attacking everything that is posted by me.

Those members are free to (a) be sick of it and (b) express it themselves.

I have said nothing that is untrue in this thread...

Hm.

I have done some 240,000 miles in one year once.

On how many days did you drive in that year, and in how many vehicles, and for what reason?

I have tried to remain calm and not lose my rag on here, but I am finding you increasingly annoying.

I sympathise - it must be quite disconcerting to have your lies exposed.

The reason I referred to you as Softus/BAS is simply because I see a similarity in the posting style and personality types, arrogant self important trolls who believe anyone they don't like can never be right and then do not have the dangly bits to admit their error.

I don't dislike you - I have no opinion either way. But I reserve the right to point out errors and inconsistencies in the things you write when you're attempting to use that information to incite other readers and to bring people around to your irrational way of thinking.

You accuse me of lieing...about what???

Please see above.

I never said my arrest was unlawful, hence the statement about pleading guilty..what I complained about was the manner of my treatment for a traffic offence.

You yourself have quoted the parts of current legislation that shows your arrest to have been unlawful. How can you claim to have understood that legislation, and claim that the recent change in police powers is bound to be abused, and yet NOT be saying that your arrest was lawful?

I have a statement I could scan onto the web which clearly shows that the arresting Police Officer actually LIED in his statement...I can prove this with a photograph because to start his statement how he has means he is able to see through a bank that is 40ft high, 1/4 mile long and coated in about 3ft of reinforced concrete and supports a four lane dual carriageway and two slip roads!!

And you still say that the arrest was lawful?

However I was still guilty of going through a Red Light, as I have never denied or excused and was fully prepared to accept the punishment for this..but the CPS have made that a moot point. What I do about the statement is another matter. I have left that up to my solicitor.

Your solicitor cannot possibly undertake to make, on your behalf, the decision whether or not to bring an action against the police. Is this a lie, or just another statement that you will later claim was made in "poor judgment"?

Now I do not have to justify myself to you.

Then don't. I fail to understand why you continue to protest and yet decline to answer any of the simple questions I've asked.

For example:

Then state clearly what I'm wrong about, and see if you can do it without involving irrelevant detail such as gender.

This thread is close to being locked. Play like grown ups or it will be. No more warnings.

Then please go ahead and lock it - you will prevent Big_Spark from posting further misinformation, and it suits him well not to have to answer any of the questions I've asked him.

 

[Moz]

lol @ richie ...

 

[ellal]

softus..

whatever your view on the arrestable nature (or not) of littering (we obviously differ) , I'll post here a recent view of a serving member of the police force that was published a while back on the bbc/manchester edition, and which I copied for suitable use...

I am a British Police Sergeant, working the streets of Manchester.

In the UK, we can arrest anyone for absolutely anything. Everything is arrestable. Littering, broken brake light, wind screen wipers not working, assault, theft, damage, to cycling on a foot path.

We can do this, providing that the suspect fits certain criteria.

We don't believe the details they give us.
We don't believe they have the means to pay a fine.
We believe that the arrest is necessary for the further investigation.
Prevent further offences
etc, etc, the list goes on.

There is always an option to arrest.

The only down-side is that we are measured by 'detections'. That is, officers have to have so many detected crimes per months.

This can be for anything.
Supect charged with theft.
Suspect warned for possessing cannabis.
Suspect given a fixed penalty ticket, £80 for retail theft.

And many more.

That doesn't mean that the officer will get the sack. It is up to the Sgt' to speak to them and give them an 'action plan'. Basically it's a notice that the Sgt' gives the officer in conjunction with the officer to help/develop the officer on their performance. Usually gives the officer a set time scale to achieve the action, i.e detections.

your views??..

oh, btw...

These are the consequences you face when demonstrating.

I don't know all the facts about that case, but, based on the information you've presented, it might or might not have been a peaceful demo performed in a safe way in a safe place.

do you believe then that it's ok if 'consequences of a peaceful legal demo' (you'll just have to take my word on that) include being 'set up for arrest'?...if so, you have a bizarre idea of democracy!!

 

[Softus]

softus..

Hi ellal.

whatever your view on the arrestable nature (or not) of littering (we obviously differ)

We can come back to that point, if you wish, but my starting point is that the I feel like the only one (on the topic) who accepts the existence of the word "indictable" in the PACE guidance code.

In the UK, we can arrest anyone for absolutely anything. Everything is arrestable. Littering, broken brake light, wind screen wipers not working, assault, theft, damage, to cycling on a foot path.

This is simply not correct, and him/her being a police officer isn't enough to make him/her correct.

We can do this, providing that the suspect fits certain criteria.

We don't believe the details they give us.
We don't believe they have the means to pay a fine.
We believe that the arrest is necessary for the further investigation.
Prevent further offences
etc, etc, the list goes on.

This is correct [enough].

There is always an option to arrest.

No there isn't, not lawfully anyway. The power to arrest exists only when the PACE conditions are met. For example, if I were to drop litter right next to an observing police officer, then politely apologise and whip out my valid passport and valid driver's license, then he would have no right, legally, to arrest me. The most he could do is caution me and report me for the offence.

your views?

It's a sad fact of life that so many things are measured by arbitrary performance criteria. For example, if the public's perception of quality of policing were a factor in personal performance, then it would be a different, and better, country.

oh, btw...

These are the consequences you face when demonstrating.

I don't know all the facts about that case, but, based on the information you've presented, it might or might not have been a peaceful demo performed in a safe way in a safe place.

do you believe then that it's ok if 'consequences of a peaceful legal demo' (you'll just have to take my word on that) include being 'set up for arrest'?...if so, you have a bizarre idea of democracy!!

I'm not aware of having published my idea of democracy, but, to avoid unnecessary argument, I agree with you. I can believe that set-ups happen, and my view is that they benefit nobody.

 

[ellal]

I'm not aware of having published my idea of democracy, but, to avoid unnecessary argument, I agree with you. I can believe that set-ups happen, and my view is that they benefit nobody.

Ok, so a freshing finish/start to a post...something we agree on!

however (and you knew that..)

This is simply not correct, and him/her being a police officer isn't enough to make him/her correct.

absolutely...but that doesn't stop a wrongful arrest does it!...and the consequences of that.

This is correct [enough].

that at least acknowledges the results of an 'all encompassing' piece of legislation..

No there isn't, not lawfully anyway.

enough said..!

 

[Big_Spark]

And what is the conclusion of the statement I repeated, and have been lambasted for that the Police can arrest for virtually any offence where they feel justified...

Afterall I never stated this was what I thought, it is what I was told by Police Officers and Solicitors..

I agree that obviously PACE is only a code of practice to guide Police Officers in the administration of their duties and the decision to arrest must meet the criteria set out in this..as we have all agreed throughout this thread. Any Offence the Police arrest anyone for must be enforcable by other legislation that details offences within it, such as the EPA Act, Criminal Justice Act, Theft Act etc etc.

The problem is that the first actual hurdle Officers face is their colleagues in the Custody Suites of Police Stations, and these are in a position to either support the charge or dismiss it, likely by telling the arrested person that no further action will be taken. The Officer in the street has the powers to stop a person for almost anything as the reasoning can be subjective as well as objective ( I personally have no issue with this per se). If the Police Officer can justify their actions, then the Officer now has the powers to arrest a person for even the most trivial offence by stating they do not believe the identity of the person they are speaking too, believe they may have committed another offence and need to arrest them for further questioning/investigation or any of the other criteria as set out in PACE.

I think we can all agree that this is the case. Afterall it is what the legislation states, as does the Home Office and the Police and Legal Profession.

That being the case, it is correct to state that the Police have the Powers to arrest a person for virtually any offence a person can commit, so long as they are able to justify their actions.

This being the case, it is then the issue of abuse of powers. I am sure that the vast majority of Officers do not abuse this power, or at least without a very good reason, however I think we can all see that this power is open to abuse and to think otherwise is nieive. Police Officers are human, they lie, cheat, steal and abuse in just the same way as other sections of our society.

 

[Softus]

A whole bunch of stuff, most of which is wrong. Again.

No.

 

[Big_Spark]

A whole bunch of stuff, most of which is wrong. Again.

No.

If you are going to quote, quote as is written, not your stupid comments.

What I have written is a basic summary of what has been discussed. If you read ALL the posts and all the quotes etc..then you will see that what I have written is correct and that your being obtuse.

 

[Steve]

Wheres the mods when u need them?