Gwent Police have confirmed to road.cc that road users, including cyclists, who submit video footage of bad driving to the force under its Operation Snap initiative may themselves face prosecution if their own behaviour, including the use of bad language, is deemed to warrant it.
You may remember our recent story about cyclist Nick Thompson, who regularly submits footage of close passes and other incidents to the force but was told that police were unable to act on incidents in which he could be heard swearing when drivers overtook him too closely.
As we reported last month, he contacted the Crown Prosecution Service to clarify the situation, and was told that “there is no general rule against prosecuting cases where victims or witnesses can be shown to have used bad language.”
That seemed to have clarified the issue for once and for all, but after submitting a further 17 videos to the force last weekend (including the one above), he received a phone call from a sergeant at Gwent Police who told him that due to bad language in some of his Operation Snap submissions, he was “committing public order offences,” and that it brought his character into question.
Nick said that the sergeant told him that a victim of assault could be prosecuted for a public order offence if they were swearing when the assault happened, and also claimed that the officer told him he would be called in for interview with the intention of prosecuting him for a public order offence if he continued to submit videos in which swearing was audible.
Gwent Police denied the latter claim, saying that he wouldn’t be brought in for interview just from submitting footage, but instead was being reminded that he had committed public order offences, there is a chance his footage could be discounted by the CPS, and that he may be called in for interview if a complaint were made against him for using bad language.
Nick told us he had made a complaint to Gwent Police about the issue, and we also contacted the force to seek clarification of the situation.
In response, Teresa Ciano, partnership manager at GoSafe Wales, which runs Operation Snap, said: “GoSafe welcomes submission to Operation Snap from all road users and takes the safety of cyclists and other vulnerable road users seriously.
“Close passes of both cyclists and horse riders are dangerous and poses a risk to the safety of cyclists and horse riders.
“Every submitter, when completing the Operation Snap submission form, must declare that they have read the Operation Snap FAQ, which can be found on the GoSafe website.
“It clearly states as part of the FAQs: ‘Will my own driving or the way in which I captured the footage be scrutinised?’
Here is what the relevant part of the FAQs says:
You must be aware that when the police review the footage which you submit that they are duty bound to also review the manner of your driving and also the manner in which the footage was obtained.
For example, if you were exceeding the speed limit in order to catch up with an offending driver and then proceeded to film them with your mobile phone whilst driving, then the police will consider also taking proceedings against you.
“By confirming they have read the FAQs, the submitter has acknowledged they are aware that their behaviour on the road will also be reviewed,” Ms Ciano continued.
“The footage received by Mr. Thompson clearly demonstrates some close passing of vehicles. We have offered some words of advice to allow us to secure the best possible chance of prosecution.
“As police, we need to consider the offences in the whole and the effect of Mr. Thompson’s behaviour on those innocent road users not involved in any way,” she added.
“The advice issued about foul language is intended to allow us to prosecute offenders without having the case undermined if his behaviour is challenged in court.”
Gwent Police deputy chief constable Amanda Blakeman also provided a response to our inquiry, saying: “We want all road users to feel safe when using them.
“Many of our officers and staff, including our senior leadership team, are keen cyclists outside of work and understand the risks posed to cyclists on the road.
“We work closely with GoSafe, also known as the Wales Road Casualty Reduction Partnership, and other partner agencies to ensure the safety of road users.
“The force often provides advice and tips to road users, and the wider public, about how to stay safe while on our roads and where to report concerns.
“Any offences identified on our roads will be investigated by officers.”
She added: “We’re also duty bound to make enquiries if a member of the public makes an official report to us about an incident on our roads, including those which may not relate directly to a motoring offence.”
Of course, it is understandable why the police may, to use one of the examples listed in the FAQs, prosecute a driver who has exceeded the speed limit to catch up with another motorist whom they believe has committed an offence (the other example is less clear-cut since, as established in the 2019 High Court case DPP v Barreto, filming at the wheel using a mobile phone is not currently an offence – although a motorist doing so could, presumably, face a charge of careless driving).
There’s no mention of swearing in the FAQs, although if a cyclist were referred for prosecution for using an expletive following a close pass, one might hope that common sense might prevail at the CPS – after all, having a couple of tonnes of metal brush past you at speed is a very unnerving experience.
Likewise, in the case of a driver in court following a close pass in which the cyclist could be heard to swear, prosecutors would hopefully be able to persuade the magistrates or jury, as the case may be, that such language from the victim in no way excuses the motorist’s previous action.
78 thoughts on “Gwent Police confirm cyclist submitting close pass footage could face prosecution for swearing (+ video … which includes swearing)”
doesn’t sound like an attempt
doesn’t sound like an attempt to quell the torrent of reports at all…
An easy fix is to submit the
An easy fix is to submit the video without the audio.
> An easy fix is to submit
> An easy fix is to submit the video without the audio.
An easy fix is to re-submit all seventeen videos without the audio.
jh2727 wrote:
I meant for future submissions. I often check what I’m submitting to make sure that I’m not incriminating myself (e.g. you don’t want to include footage of doing over that post office) and 99% of the time, the sound is irrelevant, though on my Cycliqs they’d be lucky to make out any swear words over the noise of the road and traffic.
Watching this particular
Watching this particular video without sound may give some unexpected results anyway, the dangerous close pass went on for longer than normal as the driver realised he was required to stop and give way to the oncoming vehicles, which he did. Meanwhile the rider continues on (back up the inside of the half passed or filtered past) and crucially over the giveway lines in the face of the oncoming car.
Now I know which one endangered other road users and which one didn’t but I would suspect that a traffic officer would be un-impressed with both of them.
I rarely turn the sound on
I rarely turn the sound on computers anyway, so my default is to watch it without sound.
Not the best advert for
Not the best advert for forward observation but I guess the cyclist was more intent on avoiding the car.
Is there no trick the Police won’t pull? There was one on here in Wales where the cyclist had to provide a DVD so they sent it from station to station then declared it was out of time.
Or the Irish one where they claimed ‘inappropriate signals’ – from a camera in front of the rider.
What next wearing a loud top in a built up area? Looking at me in a funny way?
hirsute wrote:
Balancing precariously on two wheels
hawkinspeter wrote:
I wondered about that, could having ‘no audio’ possibly affect the police outcome?
Cheshire Police’s Dashcam
Cheshire Police’s Dashcam Process actually states:
‘In order for Cheshire Police to deal with your reported Traffic Offence-related incident YOU MUST…[various other must/must nots]…NOT supply footage that contains audio as we may need to pass it to the other driver if contested. If you submit your footage with audio, any personal conversations would be heard by the other driver.’
I’m not sure if this means they would refuse to deal with any videos that do contain audio.
Allen Key wrote:
An easy fix is to submit the video without the audio.
— Allen Key I wondered about that, could having ‘no audio’ possibly affect the police outcome?— hawkinspeter
I doubt it.
If there’s a big verbal confrontation beforehand and the motorist provides evidence of that, then I could imagine that the police might have a word with you, but I’d guess that the motorist’s evidence would need to include video as well (as otherwise they could just fabricate it with a mate shouting abuse at them) which should back up your video evidence.
Most of the time my cameras don’t pick up any usable audio unless I’m stopped or riding on really smooth roads.
To be clear. If someone
To be clear. If someone punches me in the face for no reason, and I react by saying “why the f**k did you do that?” I expect him to get off scot free and me to be prosecuted for a public order offence?
Is come to something where a
Is come to something where a society can be tolerant of seeing someone endanger someone else’s life, but can’t be exposed to a little bad language.
I trust they will also take action against football fans, and tv companies broadcasting matches of swearing can clearly be heard
wycombewheeler wrote:
Are we allowed to swear at bad drivers past the watershed?
So if you swear on a
So if you swear on a submitted video you could be liable for a public order offence but if you don’t swear on a submitted video it could be seen that you weren’t suitably scared enough to warrant further action.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The police never miss an
The police never miss an opportunity to make themselves appear to be complete wallies.
If we apply this same “logic” to other crimes can we expect the police to prosecute the victims of assault or burglary for swearing as well?
Meanwhile back at Gwent
Meanwhile back at Gwent Police weekly all hands call, “You’ll be pleased to know that we’ve sorted all of those miserable ****ing cyclists out. We’ll get fewer complainst now we’ve told them if they are caught ****ing swearing they are ***loxed as we’ll throw the book at them. ****ing ***** the lot of them!. Next agenda item, ongoing prosecution of yoofs breaking the peace by screaming for help when running from knife gangs………”
A lot of short skirts
A lot of short skirts knocking about.
This should not be
This should not be complicated. Cause and effect – the effect can not occur first.
If the motorist can be shown to have been goaded into intemperate action due to the pre-emptive swearing from the cyclist, maybe there is a case to prosecute the cyclist. I’m thinking here along the lines of, “come on then, you wouldn’t dare, bring it on” peppered with swearing.
But given that cause and effect are the other way around, the threat to the cyclist comes first and prompts the outburst of language, the police are simply displaying their prejudice.
Sriracha wrote:
How can they be prejudiced? They all ride bikes too:
“Many of our officers and staff, including our senior leadership team, are keen cyclists outside of work…….”
Yeh, right.
Am I missing something;
Am I missing something; shouldn’t the issue/problem be that Nick didn’t give way to oncoming traffic and/or he didn’t slow when instructed to do so? In what way would the case against the driver be undermined by the victim swearing at him. That has to be nonsense the law can’t work like that, can it?
Surely the Police can prosecute either or both parties on the basis of the submitted footage. Once the footage has been submitted it’s just “evidence”. It can’t be up to the submitter to decide what the police should do.
I was slowing down when I the
I was slowing down when I the car close passed me. As I didn’t fancy waiting at the give way point with the driver, I carried on. I think the driver that had right of way saw what happened and stopped. I don’t think my action of continuing forced him to suddenly stop. I also noted this on the OpSnap submission.
It’s obviously not up to me what the police do with the evidence, but the threat by the officer that I will be dealt with more seriously than the action that caused the swearing is baffling. I have submitted over 100 videos to OpSnap and many feature extremely dangerous examples of driving that have come within inches of making contact with me. Some at ridiculous speeds, but Gwent Police haven’t issued a single NIP. They’ve written many letters politely asking drivers to drive carefully…but threatened to prosecute me.
Other police forces have prosecuted drivers for far less dangerous close passes even when the cyclist has sworn in response. I submitted a single video to Surrey Police a couple of months ago which featured swearing and they are going to prosecute the driver with no mention at all of my langauge.
Just want some consistency here. OpSnap say their priority is with the safety of vulnerable road users, so why they’re choosing not to prosecute reckless drivers when faced with excellent evidence as the victim has sworn seems negligent at best.
I wasn’t trying to be
I wasn’t trying to be critical. I totally get it and have done similar when trying to avoid dangerous driving. Just agreed that it’s odd that the police were more interested in language than road safety. It would be nice if they could explain their thinking so we clearly knew what the priorities are.
Nick1020 wrote:
Just to be clear, and for any follow-up involvement, it is for the prosecution to prove that you did not give way, not for you to admit it in a forum.
Incidentally, you did not fail to give way, because the oncoming car to whom you owe a duty to give way had clearly stopped and showed no intention of proceeding prior to you reaching the give way marking. You kept to the left, with options to stop or move off the carriageway if your assumption that he had stopped proved unfounded. Give way does not mean stop, and if you left room, having ascertained already that the oncoming car had stopped, then you did not fail to give way – at least not in any way a prosecutor could prove beyond reaosnable doubt
GMBasix wrote:
Good point…cheers ?
Good point. tbf, perhaps the
Good point. tbf, perhaps the driver recognised the conflict that was unfolding and decided not contribute to it by enforcing his right of way and allowed Nick to get out of harms way. We’ll never know but let’s give the benefit of doubt to an intelligent and careful bit of driving.
IanMK wrote:
To be fair, given where the overtaking driver had stopped, it is quite likely the oncoming driver did not have enough space to pass – until Nick continued or the overtaking driver reversed.
The solution to this problem
The solution to this problem does not lie with the police. They need enforcement of these sort of driving offences to be taken off them and given to a civil prosecution body – similar to council enforcement officers. It would be self-funding via fines, create jobs, free up police time and most importantly, make roads safer as the chance of getting caught would increase dramatically.
Good point. It doesn’t need
Good point. It doesn’t need the police to watch a video and issue a NIP. In fact, any one of us could raise a private prosecution for any criminal offence. So a civil body, trained in the relevant legislation, is perfectly capable of prosecuting these offences.
Most sensible thing I’ve seen
Most sensible thing I’ve seen posted on this forum since I last posted
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I thought it was quite a good post.
Steve K wrote:
In fairness that doesn’t preclude it being a good post, just a very low benchmark…..
Captain Badger wrote:
In fairness that doesn’t preclude it being a good post, just a very low benchmark…..— Nigel Garrage
Damned with faint praise comes to mind
wycombewheeler wrote:
In fairness that doesn’t preclude it being a good post, just a very low benchmark…..
— Steve K Damned with faint praise comes to mind— Nigel GarrageOr in this context, praised with faint damns!
“It would be self-funding via
“It would be self-funding via fines”
Oh crikey. I like the rest of the idea, but it is never a good thing for the people deciding to have a direct financial interest in handing out fines – if they don’t hand out enough, they won’t get paid.
Quote:
Only if they can show that it was “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”
Without a complaint, they cannot show this, and so there’s no offence. Meanwhile, “It is a defence for the accused to prove … that his conduct was reasonable.” I’d argue that it is reasonable to utter abusive words upon having had over a ton of metal aimed in your direction.
“The advice issued about foul language is intended to allow us to prosecute offenders without having the case undermined if his behaviour is challenged in court.”
I see we’ve already had discussion regarding the arrow of time, so we can just carry on boggling our minds at that of DCC Blakeman.
I’d hope the CPS would laugh at any suggestion of charging.
The police get sworn at
The police get sworn at regularly, and no-one gets arrested, so what is different about someone who has their life threatened swearing? I wonder if there is any case history of someone being threatened with a deadly weapon being prosecuted for swearing? In some ways, I’d love this to go to court, but even the police aren’t that stupid.
This is definitely not an attempt to stop cyclists pestering them with complaints about dangerous drivers.
eburtthebike wrote:
Ah, but the police got told in no uncertain terms that they should expect to be sworn at so they cannot be “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”
Whereas poor old motorists, who have come close to seriously injuring or killing someone, could have their delicate senses offended by some words.
But you raise a good point. Nick should absolutely continue sending in videos with the best swearing possible (not in earshot of kiddies or other vulnerable types, just in case) in an attempt to force this issue. I’m sure he’d get crowdfunding for a decent defence (if he even needed it) and we could get a precedent set.
alexls wrote:
Good point; he can count on me for a quid or ten.
” we need to consider … the
” we need to consider … the effect of Mr. Thompson’s behaviour on those innocent road users not involved in any way,”
I don’t understand that statement. In the videos that were shown here there was no “innocent road user not involved”, he just shouted at the driver and also to himself on an empty road. It would be different if he, for example, shouted at some random pedestrian who just happened to be nearby on the pavement, or something like that, but that’s not the case here. Most likely nobody ever heard him swearing at all in the real-life situation.
Perhaps I don’t understand in what way exactly swearing is a public order offence. I’d have thought it’s unacceptable to swear directly at other people or when you swear in a busy public place where others will hear it, but in situations where it can’t be heard?
Also, when I’m a “innocent” bystander and hear somebody swearing, then it certainly depends on the situation if I’m “offended”. I’m not offended when it’s not directed at me and when it’s obviously in response to some unexpected event that scared somebody (even though normally I really hate swearing). Is this not taken into account in the public order offence definition?
Stephan Matthiesen wrote:
Exactly. Many of these sort of offences are if the intent is to cause, er, offence.
Swearing in conversation or because you’ve been scared/run over – generally not an offence AFAIK.
Swearing at someone – could be an offence.
(and a fun one for the tabloids: public nudity – not actually an offence unless the intent is to cause offence etc).
I’m fast coming to the
I’m fast coming to the conclusion that the best way for cyclists to see justice dispensed is to carry a baseball bat and dispense it ourselves.
Richard D wrote:
Just ensure the person you’re beating up swears, then GPC will prosecute them as well….
Sounds like entrapment to me.
Sounds like entrapment to me…
Captain Badger wrote:
I carry a baseball bat and a ventriloquist just to be sure.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Or is the ventriloquist carrying you? And where has he got his hand?…..
Captain Badger wrote:
.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Or is the ventriloquist carrying you? And where has he got his hand?…..
— Captain Badger .— hawkinspeterOr, a bit more aggressive; at least if your name is Parkinson.
eburtthebike wrote:
Ah, the good old days when weird men with hand puppets could attack people on live TV and everybody just laughed…
hawkinspeter wrote:
Ouch, that’s gotta smart…..
Keen cyclists eh? then they
Keen cyclists eh? then they’ll know where to use their famous “police discretion”….
Let’s pick this one apart.
Let’s pick this one apart.
– Police Sargeant uses an excuse to try and deter Nick Thompson submitting such a high volume of close pass videos, in order to prevent the Constabulary being swamped
– Deputy Chief Constable provides a statement to overrule Police Sargeant’s feedback realising that the view would further erode trust in the police to protect vulnerable road users such as cyclists
The feedback from the Sargeant shows that there is lack of understanding of how scary a close pass can be and why a victim would be compelled to swear. As we all know already, there’s still a long road ahead before all we feel safe and protected when riding on the roads.
Quote:
So, if Gwent Police deny the claim. Does that mean Sergeant Austin didn’t make the threat in a voicemail message and also in the subsequent conversation when I called him back, or are they suggesting I made it up?
If only I had the evidence to back up my claims. It’s a good job I have a recording of both the voicemail message and phone call. There was a clear threat to bring me in for an interview with the intention to prosecute me.
I’m still waiting to hear back from Gwent Police as I made a complaint. However, after reading their response to Road.cc, I’m not expecting much.
Apparently the swearing still brings my character in question. If only Gwent Police were as concerned regarding my safety.
Thanks to Simon, Jack and Road.cc for posting the article ?
Nick1020 wrote:
Wow! You have the evidence and they still deny it? Something going very wrong with that police force. Have you approached the media?
I have composed an email to
I have composed an email to my local paper but haven’t sent it as yet. The media have fuelled much of the anti-cycling vitriol in recent years, so I’m not sure if I will send it. You only have to read the comments to articles where cyclists have been injured or worse to gauge how some sections of the public regard people riding a bike.
I’ve also contacted my local MS.
Policeman caught telling lies
Policeman caught telling lies, no surprise there…
JN35000 wrote:
But at least they don’t swear, so they tell us….
“We train young men to drop
“We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won’t allow them to write ‘f***’ on their airplanes because it’s obscene !”
In the video above the car
In the video above the car passes dangerously close, then stops to allow the opposing vehicle (which has priority) through. Nick, the cyclist, then passes the vehicle and heads through, even though he didn’t have priority, and should have given way.
I would not have submitted that footage in that position, since his own cycling would obviously have been called into question, regardless of the dangerous driving of others around him.
Jenova20 wrote:
Let me fix that for you. Motorists chooses to pass dangerously close, on the approach to a traffic calming feature – when it is plain to see that there is another motorist approaching said traffic calming feature who has priority. The motorists then aborts the unsafe overtake, but rather than dropping back behind the cyclist, they stop in the middle of the road blocking the oncoming motorist (difficult to be certain without a rear camera, but certainly looks like that).
The cyclist has two options at this point – proceed against the oncoming motorist who has already been forced to stop, or stop at the give way line, and wait whist the oncoming motorist forces the overtaking motorist to reverse.
Jenova20 wrote:
The overtaking driver not only passed dangerously close, but in an utterly inappropriate place – eg the approach to a give way. They didn’t stop, but pulled in pinching the rider to the kerb
It’s not clear that the oncoming was actually oncoming. Their position suggests that they may have already pulled into the side as they read the situation and decided it was safer to let things develop before committing – if so wise move and good road reading.
Incidentally. Zebra crossing in the middle of a priority road calming thingy? WTF????
When I went to court as a
When I went to court as a witness in a close passing incident, the defence solicitor said that the pass couldn’t have been to severe because I couldn’t be heard swearing at the driver….
It seems to me on that either
It seems to me on that either the video reviewer has a sensitive disposition or they have misinterpreted guidelines meant when someone is swearing and causes rage from the other user. Ie two cars almost have a collision and the one driver then swears at the other who then brake tests / leads to a confrontation.
But I would release this to the press / MP as if someone doesn’t swear when there life is put in danger, when can they. However if you have another video where you can show the life threatening and swearing but don’t appear to breach road rules or etiquette it would be better because otherwise the points will be lost in “whatabouterism”
It doesn’t take long
It doesn’t take long searching online to find numerous videos of Police officers swearing at potential crims when they are trying to arrest them. Telling them to “GET ON THE F#%*ING GROUND” and other similar instruction, very often at high volume. How is that acceptable, yet they may not proceed with a case if the victim of a close pass has sworn in an impulsive response to fearing for their life? Makes me wonder if some of the videos I have submitted over the years to South Wales Police have been ignored simply because I swore in them.
The police, at least in
The police, at least in Lancashire, are always looking for dodges which they can deploy to avoid doing anything about anything. You’ve seen them all on here: there must be 2 or 5, or whatever they think you haven’t got, minutes of video before and after the incident or, they lie, it’s not admissible evidence; there has to be confirmatory video from the offending vehicle; the cyclist must have braked or wobbled or the pass wasn’t close enough; we can’t possibly use video shown on social media because it has been rendered inadmissible etc. etc. Now we have the assertion someone swearing to himself is such a heinous offence against public order that nearly terminating a cyclist pales into insignificance. It’s all complete bollocks which they just make up from their tortured psyches- they’re just trying it on and you have to complain and then complain again. Just as in this case, they often try to intimidate the complainant with threats that he will be prosecuted. Unless you really have done something pretty bad (not these non-offences like swearing to yourself) just call the bluff- these people are not very bright and don’t plan ahead very well. They’re also not too good on the law because they routinely ignore the legislation supporting the Highway Code when cyclists are involved. I recall the Blackpool Traffic Sergeant threatening to prosecute me for not moving far enough to the left to allow the hapless driver to pass me conveniently in a normal width lane and forcing him to cross the double unbroken white lines in a dangerous position. He said he would have to examine the video to see whether I should be prosecuted. I urged him to do this, but I never heard from him again.
Remember, when the offenders are undoubtedly guilty the police are the hidden enemy!
Gwent Police can go f**
Gwent Police can go **** themselves, the st*&&%$ co#*&%** w@*&%s
Gwent Police can go f****
Gwent Police can go f**** themselves, the st*&&%$ co#*&%** w@*&%s
A not unreasonable comment, given that it’s clear that’s what Gwent Police have in mind for annoying b*****d cyclist c***s.
Bloody hell Nick. You’re
Bloody hell Nick. You’re having a hell of a time with the police lately. We’ll have to go for a ride soon, i got front and rear cameras these days so god only knows what i’d end up recording riding with you again
skwarczek wrote:
Just make sure you have a lawyer on speed dial G ?
I am a criminal defence
I am a criminal defence solicitor and this is, as many say, absolute rubbish. there is a world of difference in swearing at someone when in shock or fear at a close pass and, say, following them after swearing at them constantly.
I suggest a letter to the duty Inspector asking he or she to comment may be a good idea.
And from the prosecution side
And from the prosecution side of things the likelihood of charges being authorised against the cyclist is as near to nothing as makes no odds. “A” assaults “B” during the course of being assaulted “B” shouts abuse & expletives at “A”, no prosecutor’s going to press charges against “B” for a public order offence not least because it wouldn’t be in the public interest to do so. Any assertion by an officer that the cyclist would face charges should result in a complaint.
Yup, complaint time. Needs to
Yup, complaint time. Needs to be taken all the way. They’re using a gross misreading of the law to harass a victim of crime because they don’t want to deal with it. Don’t bother with the letter to the inspector, go straight to the independent complaints body.
In a way this is good news, the force in question has really crossed the line this time.
Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(b)that his conduct was reasonable.
Don’t bother with the letter
Don’t bother with the letter to the inspector, go straight to the independent complaints body
I don’t think you can! Of course, it may be that these things are dependent on the attitude of the particular PCC, but it’s my guess that most of them are after a quiet life and congenial meals out with the Chief Constable, so you’re essentially dealing with another department of the police. They will make you go through the foot-dragging procedure with the (in Lancashire) intentionally impotent Professional Standards Department. This takes several months (again, in Lancashire) and returns a completely useless and stupid statement of what happened, which you knew when you started the complaint. You have to be in the ‘complaints against the police’ for the long haul. They aim to wear down the scum complainants. Then you can start on the PCC foot-dragging procedure. It is my expectation that this ends with something like ‘we can’t interfere with operational police decisions’, which are of course the only things we’re interested in. Keep going!
Fuck me. What a bunch of
Fuck me. What a bunch of clear conviction dodging lazy waste of taxpayers money these twats are.
So by their definition, an innocent woman being raped or an innocent person being murdered but swearing while the act is happening could put the conviction in doubt because their character could be brought in to question?
People depend on these idiots doing their jobs properly. Confidence has never been so low in the police and it’s things like this that are the reason.
Where do I sign to defund these fuckwits?
I am afraid this attitude
I am afraid this attitude from the Police is not new. In 1983 after I was knocked off my Motorcycle by a car driver not looking before pulling out on me the Police officers who interviewed me were more fussed about my effing and jeffing at the dopey driver than they were at the fact they nearly killed me. I remember remarking “sorry next time I must remember to say thank you when someone tries to kill me”……Two wheels equals 2nd class treatment I’m afraid.
F off it can be illigall to
F off it can be illigall to use a verb
I presume that Gwent Police
I presume that Gwent Police also remind all other victims of any kind of assault that they will be prosecuted for bad language……
For what it’s worth many of the submissions that I’ve made to Herts Police have contained bad language and insults (from me). Not once have Herts cautioned me in this way.
Captain Badger wrote:
Cabbages