French Run - The Story So Far

I've lost it over time.

I've had dealings in a number of circumstances (strikes, demos, rail
fatalities, court appearances, wanted persons, road 'issues' etc) and
there's been some utter, utter wankers in uniform and they've done the
damage.

None of them have been Traffic Police - make of that what you will.

 

Impounding probably has an effect.

 

Good - that the letter has gone, not that you still feel pissed off.

Amusing? More like fucking bizarre. I'd write to the Chief Constable
*and* the Head of the Police Authority over something like this as you
will get some stupid "pat" answer from the Complaints Manager.

 

For you the thread is over.

 

Too many of them act like coppers out of TV shows, and I don't mean
"Dixon of Dock Green".

 

Consider judicious use of the word "sonny".

 

Depends on the car. Impounding a three hundred quid chav chariot
probably doesn't.

 

Apart from the use of 'have' instead of 'has', I'd agree utterly ;-))

Every one of the few dealings I've had with TrafPol has left me with
respect for the geezer - whether it's been simple conversation or a
well-deserved bollocking.

General Plod in uniform is another matter.

 

Isn't it funny how general plod all seem to hate traffic?

--
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
IQ 18 RADIO http://www.iq18films.co.uk
Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

 

In all honesty, if it were me, I'd be more tempted to complain to the
Insco. It's their apparent mess up which led to your bike not being
shown as insured.

As far as the stop itself is concerned, and going purely by what
you've posted, I'm a little confused by the whole wanting to complain
thing. Now I do acknowledge that I'm probably a little overly
sensitive to the whole complaints issue, but bear with me here.

If I understand it correctly, you got stopped for having a slightly
"not quite legal" plate, for which you got a non endorsable ticket.
You also apparently had a "NQL" tyre, however you didn't get the
endorsable ticket for that, so saving yourself £80 and 3 points, or
more had the 2 offences been reported together for summons rather than
FPN. I think you've already acknowledged that this was a bit of a
result in itself.

During the course of the stop checks were made which showed that the
bike didn't appear to be insured. You were told (in what manner, I
don't know) that if it transpired that the bike was, indeed,
uninsured, then there was a power to seize it there and then. You
found this to be somewhat intimidating. This I can understand, but,
at the end of the day, it's true. The officers who dealt with you
apparently believed your assertion that you were, indeed, insured, as
they neither seized the bike nor issued the £200/ 6 point FPN.

If your letter of complaint is purely about the fact that you felt
uncomfortable/intimidated/threatened by being told that your vehicle
could be seized, then really you'll get nowhere, but if it would make
you feel better for having sent it, then go for it.

If your complaint is about the fact that the power even exists, then
the letter should really be addressed to your MP, the Home Secretary,
the Mail on Sunday, whoever. It's not something the Police Complaints
system can change or address, and would be the waste of a stamp.

If your complaint is about the manner you were dealt with, ie the
officers were rude, swearing, acting unlawfully etc, then you have a
perfectly valid point. Copy your letter to the IPCC and the local
Police Authority as well. Still complain to the InsCo, mind. You
could even find a cheque wings its way to you for the distress. (I
got one!)

It's worth noting that most Traffic Cars are fitted with on board
video. It records conversation inside the car, and can capture
conversation outside if the doors or windows are left open. If you're
saying that the way you were dealt with was out of order due to
swearing/rudeness etc, it would be worth asking to get a copy of the
tape. Oh and to forestall the usual nitpicking... In the Met, each
crew has to account for the tapes for each tour. Sealed bags and
logged into a register at the end of each shift, and potential
discipline for failing to comply. The tapes are also time/date and
frame stamped, so no going back and recording over bits. Again, I
cannot comment on any other Force's procedures, 'cos I haven't a clue
what they are.

Now I'm not saying that Police are right all the time, and that you
shouldn't complain. Clearly there are some prize plonkers out there
who should not even be allowed to be wearing the uniform or carrying
the warrant card, and the more of them that are kicked out the better.
To be honest, I've been stopped a few times myself and have sometimes
wanted to curl up and die due to the cringeworthy and frankly
unprofessional way I've been spoken to. (driving S.O.B. and Car, all
perfectly legal, mind) Have to say not by TrafPol, but by locals. I
usually let them bang on and do what they will, without "showing out".
I do particularly hate the whole inventing offences thing which some
of the younger blokes seem to do. Much more fun to turn up at their
nick on a marked bike or car later on and speak to their senior
management. An option not available to most, granted.

 

Not in my book. it's just Bear's postings always seemed a bit, erm,
colourful with regards to Police, hence my view.

Agree with you there.

Aye.
However, I try my best not to generalise, and treat each person as I
find them, and get a bit frustrated when the person I'm dealing with
speaks to me like something that's just been scraped off the bottom of
a shoe just because of the actions of some of the other 100,000 +
officers in the country. I know I'm old enough and ugly enough that
it shouldn't be a bit annoying. Certainly I've been in the game for
long enough, but still, it does get a teensy bit grinding.

 

sadly, I know exactly where you're coming from.

Pleased to hear it.

 

Well, fair enough, but your postings do seem, to me at least, to be of
the "ACAB" variety, hence my assumption. Oh, and agreed on the
last bit.

I've tried to make clear that it's not used as the sole basis for
removal of a vehicle. It's a starting point. That's all. You have
to start somewhere.

But having ID on you and proving you own the machine does not stop it
being uninsured. Of the 6 people I did for not having insurance this
afternoon, every single one of them had ID on them. All the vehicles
were registered to them and, in the end, every single one of them
admitted that they had no insurance. 6 more uninsured cars off the
road on the back of a transporter.

I think you'll find we agree quite strongly on this.

I didn't

See above, I was making (apparently erroneous) assumptions based on
the posts I have read from you. For that I apologise, but I think
you can possibly see where I got the idea from.

 

Agreed, sadly.

 

Yup! <G>

 

Bear's posting are generally colourful, whatever the subject.

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads
_505014-02.hcsp#P31_5486

Think again.

 

Forgot to add, having worked with an insurer quite a lot over the past
few years there's also a regulatory requirement that they have to keep
the database accurate to within (IIRC) 14 days..

 

LOL!

Love it.

Is the inventing of offences thing to do with quotas or targets, or
simply a desire to nail somebody for something if everything else checks
out ok?

 

That appears to say that insurance companies are authorized or allowed,
rather than compelled, to put the info in the database:
"7. All those required to keep records currently will be authorised to keep them
electronically and to provide copies to the database."