We have detected that your browser is using AdBlock

Police Community is a not for profit organisation and advertising revenue is key to our continued viability.

Please disable your AdBlocker on our site in order to continue using it.
This message will disappear once AdBlock has been disabled.

Thank you for your support - we appreciate it !

If you feel you are getting this message in error please email support@policecommunity.co.uk


Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Tobermory last won the day on May 14 2016

Tobermory had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Tobermory

  • Rank
    Getting There
  1. Is there a right and wrong? Licensing lawful acts seems like a scam to me. Insurance is also a racket, compulsory insurance is a state-sponsored scam. Most traffic law (indeed most legislation) is nothing to do with natural law or recognisable wrongs, it's just various corrupt politicians colluding to create arbitrary rules and regulations designed to generate revenue, track the population and criminalise as many people as possible. To some extent I actually sympathise with police when they are railroaded into dealing with some poor bloke who has picked up a bit of speed going down an incline and dared to reach 65 on an open straight road. but then there are also plenty coppers who relish in this sort of activity, all in the name of "public safety" right? I've long believed that law should be based on natural law, things that most people would say are wrong, assault, vandalism, theft, robbery, fraud, murder etc. etc. and the civil courts should be the arbiters of all the shades of grey, not the police, they have better things to do dealing with the previous list, and CERTAINLY not politically motivated so-called representatives in Westminster. So to answer your question, I didn't admit being wrong (or indeed right) because it's a pointless debate, you won't change my mind and I won't change yours and actually that's perfectly ok. That's the nature of living in a (for now anyway) free country. Strikes me that some police don't really like that though.
  2. Because they have to, it's procedure and is referred to as 'self defined ethnicity', while the officer at a stop could decide that you look white/British for example, you may identify yourself as something completely different. You're given that choice. Idle conversation, chit chat, seeing what your answer is, because they're looking for another job and you look well paid... It could be any number of reasons. It can prove to be a useful tool as well. Officer: Where have you just come from? Driver: Work Officer: Oh right, where do you work? Driver: Acme Widget Co Officer: But it's 3am and they close at 11pm You catch the drift I'm sure. Would depend largely on the general demeanour of the person I'd say, and whether or not you thought that they had something to hide or were simply being a bit of a wally just for the sake of it. Thank you, I appreciate it. I suppose the police are as strangled by politically correct red tape as much as any other public service, fair enough. Given your answer to the second question, it's good to know I was quite right to politely decline, anyone could easily get tied up in knots even they're being entirely truthful. Pity you would consider someone simply exercising their civil rights as a "wally", no real need for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting information to be logged and used to swell some database or other. It's not a crime to want to be private, I just wish more constables could understand that. Oh, and Blueboy, being pro civil liberties does not automatically make police constables the enemy...unless they choose to be.
  3. Ok, so lets discuss procedure... Why do police ask irrelevant questions like what colour I think my skin is? and what I do for a living when executing a "document check"? What would be the most appropriate response to a citizen that politely declines to answer?
  4. Talking of trolls You do realise that this is a police orientated forum don't you? The title is a bit of a give-away If you're just here to 'have a pop', I can assure you that we've seen it all before and it gets old, fast! Fair enough you might feel that you were not treated professionally, but, unless those officers that stopped you happen to be members of the forum, there's not a great deal that anyone else can say. If you feel that you've got a legitimate complaint, good for you, go and complain to the force. Complaining on an internet forum isn't going to help you. What better place to get answers to questions about policing? Just because I don't have an "all cops are wonderful" attitude doesn't make the questions, opinions etc any less legitimate. There is nothing in the rules stating this is forum is only designed as a police love-in. Why do you have such scathing disregard for alternative points of view? In response to my above scenario I was trying to figure out why police would act the way they do and say the things they do in reaction to certain situations, what's wrong with that? Sarcastic one liners from shed_seven and assumptions that I'm complaining from admin don't achieve anything. Rather than being uppity and defensive, what's your opinion? How would you respond to someone who politely declines to answer irrelevant questions? I'm genuinely interested (even if you can't accept that).
  5. I don't know if you are in the police or not, there seems to be some checked insignia under usernames to denote that but I'll assume you are. Going back to my above experience, how would you respond to a citizen who is flagged down, stops safely, produces documentation but declines to answer personal questions? I'm not trying to catch you out, I'm genuinely interested.
  6. Chilling, spoken like a true dictator. Nice troll though
  7. Fair enough, maybe we should give police the power to just wander into anyone's house and search their belongings at any time? You would catch a lot more criminals, or at least get a few more 'results'. Perhaps we should allow the police just to arrest anyone at any time for 'questioning'? Abandon the right to silence? Reintroduce torture? There's loads of ways of catching more rule breakers but it would a be a shitty country to live in.
  8. You're missing the point, I did comply, I pulled over in a safe place, provided all the documentation on request, and politely declined to answer any questions which I am not obliged to and which are, to be honest, nobody's damn business. They also weren't knobs in front of me, they were reasonably professional (a little butthurt and a touch abrupt) but still professional. It was the stuff they said when I was out of earshot over the radios that was more revealing. Your first question is quite a revealing one, and in answer...no! I don't want or even expect "things all my own way". I will be frank, the whole concept of suspicion-less stops and checks chills me to the bone but it looks like they are here to stay so I'll just have to live with it. I stopped, provided docs, was polite throughout and never raised my voice above conversational level. How is that not complying?
  9. A well constructed and thought out counter...bravo sir. Let's try again, why can't it be that simple?
  10. I was polite, respectful, peaceful, non-threatening and unarmed...EVERYTHING the police were not. All I did was decline to answer their irrelevant questions, what's wrong with that? If we put aside the garbage that is a "document check" int he first place, then the interaction could have gone as follows:- "Morning constable, can I ask why you have stopped me" "just a document check sir, may I see your licence etc." "No problem, here it is" "Where have you been, going, who with, ethnicity, occupation etc. etc." "I politely decline to answer those questions constable." "That's ok, there's your licence back, have a good day" "You too constable." Now, please explain why it can't be that simple? Why are some police so precious that they just can't handle the fact that a citizen is DARING not to comply, obey and bow down?
  11. You are quite right, my mistake...and I am fully aware the police have the (perfectly reasonable) right to redact certain information, third parties, info pertaining to current investigations, politically sensitive data, etc. etc. Well, I've done it once (under DPA, not FOI as I've already been corrected) in relation to a "show me your paperz" type traffic stop, euphemistically referred to as a "document check". I can only assume that the constables involved were either supremely confident in their untouchability or simply didn't care what nonsense they said over the radio. There were several examples of half-truths, contradictions and downright lies...none of them a big enough whopper that it would cause me much of a problem or even warrant going to the considerable effort of a complaint, but enough that it demonstrated the constable's precious ego had been dented by a civilian having the temerity to actually have the docs to hand and not wanting to answer personal questions such as where I'd been, where I was going, who I'd been with, and even more bizarrely, my occupation??? The constable on the radio referred to me as "argumentative", how exactly not answering questions, not expressing an opinion and not making statements is being "argumentative" is anyone's guess. A different constable also told me that they didn't think I was insured, however on the incident report there is no mention of insurance problems anywhere, complete fabrication. ...and I bet you still wonder why I don't trust 'em.
  12. If you are interested in what information police hold about you, a subject access request made under the freedom of information act should elicit and and ALL info, that the police as an entire institution hold concerning your details. It can make for some VERY interesting reading.
  13. Probably, unless she uses the magic words "alarm and distress".
  14. The chances of the police being involved are somewhat less than zero, keeping your garden tidy is one of the few pursuits that our stupid justice system hasn't criminalised yet. ​ The recording thing is a difficult one, normally I would say record away, anything you like but...you could make an argument for saying a back garden IS somewhere where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy, then again, you could claim lawful excuse if you felt there was the reasonable suspicion of her making false allegations. ​ ​Neighbour disputes are always messy and if police get involved it will inevitably get even messier. If it were me (and this is most certainly not law advice), I'd install CCTV and have it only focused on your garden, any time you and her in the gardens at the same time, save the video, that way all that will ever be shown is you pottering around tending to your flora and completely ignoring her. No easy answers sadly.
  15. I'm sorry Katrina but you will need to get some evidence for yourself, unless you belong to a protected vulnerable group then a baseless, foundationless allegation isn't going to go far. If what you say is true then evidence should be easy to get. It doesn't even need to be an all singing, all dancing CCTV system, a cheap webcam in a window will suffice. Another thing you can do is get a cheap body worn camera, doesn't need to be HD or anything, and wear it when you enter or leave the property. I would also advise (and the police on here will hate me even more for saying this), have it record any and all interactions with the police. Record the noise and times, easy but more effective than "this is what happened, honest guv". By all means keep a diary but to be honest, it's of limited value without real evidence, diaries can be fabricated, video can't. My last advice is, above all don't come across as being a bigot, I'm not saying you are but the physical appearance, age or social class of someone is entirely irrelevant to your situation, and could easily find yourself accused of some "hate crime" or other. Stay calm, stay rational and get your evidence.