Whoa! Back up a bit! Ask yourself how it got to that point in the first place. As Matt has just posted, the Doctor was observing the demonstration in a perfectly legal manner. It was the Police who provoked a reaction by firstly pushing him to the ground, then continuing this theme by making a false accusation and then lying on camera ("You've just admitted you've had two drinks...") before we got anywhere near the Doctor refusing to give a sample of breath.
Right i have just watched the begining of the video again, firstly you can see he was pushed away from an arrest in progress because he was trying to stick his camera in there, he is told to move the camera before he is pushed. There is a noticable time between when he was pushed and when he falls over. Was he pushed again or did he trip? you cannot tell because its not on camera, he says nothing when he is on the floor, no claims of assault at that time etc. so to claim he was pushed to the floor by the police is pure speculation. He may have been pushed over, he may have tripped you cannot tell. On the subject of being pushed, he is in the middle of a protest which some elements are clearly getting out of hand (hence the arrest). Do people expect him to be tickled out of the way? Secondly he is asked twice to rejoin the line, he doesn't ask to rejoin himself, the police ask him politely to rejoin the line twice, he doesn't so is moved on by the copper in question (it's only at this point he then starts to complain he is being assaulted). Then the drinking thing starts, he was moving with the copper without causing too much of a problem to him so why does the copper then claim he has been drinking? maybe he did smell of booze? Maybe the copper got fed up and thought this would be an easy way of removing him from the situation? again we can't tell because we do not have the full information. Then the copper lies, saying he 'had two drinks' i have already stated previously that was wrong. However surely if you were in that situation, being accused of drinking and you had not been, would you not request to be breathalysed to prove your innocence? I know i would. He then compounds the situation he is in by refusing to give a sample! Other coppers then tell him if he doesn't give a sample he will be arrested as its an offence so why does he not give a sample? There is a hell of a lot happening before the drinking claim, and there is probably more we cannot see from earlier in the day as it has not been included in the clip, it opens with someone being arrested, why? and is it a coincidence that the good doctor happens to be right next to it? we can't tell because the clip is incomplete. Has the good doctor been getting in the coppers way all day? He is certainly referred to by name without being asked for it so we have to assume that he is known to them for one reason or another. Maybe i look at it from the coppers point of view because i come from a police family (Mum, Dad and my Brother were all Police, I'm the black sheep), maybe I'm suspicious of the video as it only shows the story from one side and doesn't show the full picture. The way i see it is that drinking charge was never going to stick and was being used as a way of removing him from the situation, the copper was being a tit about it, the lieing was bang out of order but the situation could have been diffused long before it got out of hand if he had agreed to give a sample.
I think the point being made is that there should be NO reason to even take a breath test, whether or not he would pass. It's an abuse of power at best and a criminal act at worst by the policeman. You simply cannot make up the rules (they're called Laws!) as you go along to fit the situation you are in. Yes, it's jolly convenient to drag one bloke aside on the pretence of getting him nicked for drink driving, send him off down the nick, he passes the tests, get released after a few hours of processing to goes back and join the protest BUT that's not a lawful thing to do and we don't live in the Gene Hunt era any more however much some think/wish they did! If you want the police to be able to act that way then that's fine, but I find it very disconcerting that powers are being abused in this way because if it was a protest for something that I cared about or affected me - and it's not that difficult to think of a situation where it could be any one of us - then I would hope that I wouldn't come up against such people when carrying out a lawful protest. And you're right that we don't get the whole context of the video of course - but that equally works both ways, not just in favour of one scenario.
Yes the copper lied about him saying he had been drinking, but what if he could smell booze? Everybody seems to assume he hadn't been drinking because of the way the copper acts but what if he acted like that because he could smell booze? The doctor admitted to driving there, if they genuinely had cause to believe that he had been driving under the influence then the police are perfectly within their rights to request a sample, nothing illegal at all, no abuse of power. If you look at it that way then refusing to give a sample does look suspicious. Like i said before, we do not have the full information. He could have absolutely stank of booze but you will never know from a video.
True I heard him say that he hadn't been driving. You think the copper making the allegation genuinely believe he had been drinking? Behave yourself. No it doesn't I'm loving the fact that you say your family has lived with Nazi oppression and that they have served in the Polive force to prove your argument by the way. A bit like the people who say they can't be racist because they have a black friend. Well done you.
Seems others answered your question re my post Attila. If he was obstructing justice, unlawfully, why not just arrest him lawfully? What if he had been in custody, refused to be cuffed (remember he was arrested illegally potentially) then died in custody? Would that still be ok? Thats the pount. If someone is annoying a copper, its ok then to lie and stitch them up....don't know about nazi Germany but its at least Life on Mars..
Selective editing? None of that was edited out of context, you said all of that in the post above, what's selective about that?
Indeed. Being a "troublemaker", whatever that means, is not an offence and nor is demonstrating. The police have no business interfering with people on that basis. They should focus on people who actually have committed offences of violence, dishonesty, etc., or at least people who have incited or conspired. It is totally unacceptable for the police to concoct non-existent offences, lie about the facts, and try to pin them on people - it's sheer harrassment.
Hmmm, this has got me thinking (I normally don't bother), Has the PC in question read about or does he know the PC who just had a settlement for £430k for being ribbed by his colleagues? Is this PC trying the same game? Acting like a cock and then crying "help, I have lost all credibility through no fault of my own and everyone calls me Baldrick now"
of course it was, we all saw the video nobody is arguing about it, why point it out? Ok after re listening to it I may be wrong there, I thought he initially admitted to driving. Do you have proof he didn't drive though? Nope, nobody on here does... Taken out of context, It doesn't matter what I think, I wasn't there. What I posted was a statement of fact, do you know what the copper was thinking, are you psychic? Again out of context, I was stating that there is nothing illegal and no abuse of power to request a breath sample from someone suspected of drink driving. Maybe you should stop skim reading? Again, do you know what he smelt like? based on the (lack of) information here can you say for absolute certainty that Dr Peers had not been drinking? Were you there? I would put good money on the answer being No... SOVIET Oppression, if you can't even read that right then I suggest you try taking a little more time thinking before you respond. I'm not sure what you mean by that statement anyway, are you calling me a Racist? or a Fascist? Either way I assume it was a thinly veiled insult? What I was saying is that this situation hardly registers as oppression, it's not like they planted a gun on him is it? How many times do I have to say it THE COPPER WAS WRONG TO LIE but they gave him an easy out which would have avoided any charges and the idiot was too stupid to take it! Let me leave with this question, do you think the Dr is completely innocent (not legally but morally) here? and do you think he was not trying to stitch someone up?
Still missing the point. An easy way out of what? He didn't break the law. There was nothing to get out of. Sure he was an annoying tit, and some may have lots of sympathy for the plod trying to do their job in the easiest way possible. But that is not (yet) illegal. Genuine question. So what if he had been drinking? No sign of a Vehicle, he wasn't in or near one he owned or could have driven. Even if he had, under what suspicion could he been breathalysed on? Who knows if he drove there, hip flask while he waits in the cold, and Mrs Doctor was picking him up?
How am i missing the point? I even put it in bold and underlined it! He was wrong to lie, ergo he shouldn't have done it! I'm kinda getting bored of having to repeat it. You are missing my point though, with the information at hand prove he wasn't drink driving. You can't, nobody here can, everyone here (myself included) is forming opinions based on not having all of the information. He may have walked there, he may have drove, he may have drunk tea, he may have had half a bottle of vodka, we don't know and any statement otherwise is pure speculation...
Is your point the guy was asked to stop, didn't, and could have proved he hadn't been drinking by giving a sample? Where was the evidence he was? The car? Keys? Anything? And if he had alcohol on his breath, so what? Thats my point. There was no crime or evidence of suspected crime (from whats reported and on the vid I've seen) to give just reason for the, to ask for a sample. Time to draw a line then...I think I get your point and its wrong; you think you get my point and I'm wrong. coolio i'm right tho ;-) pmsl
Not quite, my point was that the copper was wrong to do what he did but the dr could have easily diffused the situation by volunteering a sample and therefore taking the moral high ground. As for evidence, that was my other point, there is none to prove either way so its impossible to come to an informed decision. But yes please can we get back to talking bikes, this winter is getting on everyones tits and making us all irate.
