robroy:
So you can’t physicalky show your arse,.a recognised gesture of dissatisfaction with something, whether you like it or not…without displaying your meat and two veg.'?
C’mon Franglais,.we all know you have an undying loyalty to anything or anybody official, and that you see it as your place on here to play devils advocate, but let’s get real here mate for a moment eh?
Neither of us were there, so neither of us knows, but Ill agree it is possible to expose just your nether cheeks. "a recognised gesture of dissatisfaction with something" Personally I dont want to see even that on a shopping trip, nor in a restaurant if someone doesnt like the meal. Yeah it shows displeasure, but that doesnt make it acceptable in public.
Why did he drive off? It wasnt him having banter or joking was it? It was him realising hed been a silly boy and running away.
If that was a joke, then fine, take a telling off and apologise. Smile and accept the finger wagging.
Dont do a runner, dont refuse to talk to a Cop who knocks at your door.
I note you seem to agree the guy bought a lot on himself by being silly.
His escalating it all ensures he won`t likely be let off with a caution. Too many involved now.
Anyway I suspect he has gotten another coupla ticks on his list now:
Newspaper story and being on TNUK!
Why did he drive off? Why would he stay? After youve mooned the speed van your task is completed isnt it? What would be the reason to stand there longer with your trousers up?
When a cop has just smashed your garden gate down and hes stood there with 6 mates you would pop out and say hello would you? He was probably terrified. They wont “let him off” with a caution - caution for what? Indecent exposure? Really? Is anyone with half a brain going to prosecute a dying man for mooning someone? How much money do the police have to waste? I know its a lot but surely it must stop somewhere.
I was mooned as a kid - we all just laughed. I was ten. Certainly didnt traumatise me. Id be bloody ashamed of myself for accusing him of indecent exposure - but i know police are very sensitive to being made to look like idiots.
You’re not getting this are you?
The camera operator isn’t a copper [emoji1787]
It was decided long ago that it was cheaper and a better use of police officers to use civilian staff.
Whatever your reaction, this guy for whatever reason chose to make a complaint- which is his legal right.
So what you’re actually whining about is some civvy like you reacting differently to what you think is right.
Unlucky
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Yeah but the point is 6 cops backed him up with 3 cop cars so dont say “this was a civvys fault”
Don’t say its a civvy’s fault?
It was his complaint that resulted in arrest …
The police once the offence is reported are legally obliged to look at it.
JeffA:
Smashing the gate up shows you what mood they were really in rather than how they act when they know they are being filmed by a 70 year old woman.
I didnt think he had any interaction with the guy in the van - why would the guy in the van even claim it was indecent exposure?
Does it?
Or are you making assumptions?
Was the gate smashed in? Or was it far less damage?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Looks well smashed in to me. Its not like the police are going to take any care with his property - they went there to play the big cheese. Smashing peoples gates is the least of their concerns.
JeffA:
Smashing the gate up shows you what mood they were really in rather than how they act when they know they are being filmed by a 70 year old woman.
I didnt think he had any interaction with the guy in the van - why would the guy in the van even claim it was indecent exposure?
Why would the guy claim it?
Erm… because he was there?
Or he reported what he’d seen and the police arrested for the offence they believed it constitutes?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
So everytime youve seen someone moon youve called it indecent exposure? Really?
JeffA:
Smashing the gate up shows you what mood they were really in rather than how they act when they know they are being filmed by a 70 year old woman.
I didnt think he had any interaction with the guy in the van - why would the guy in the van even claim it was indecent exposure?
Why would the guy claim it?
Erm… because he was there?
Or he reported what he’d seen and the police arrested for the offence they believed it constitutes?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
So everytime youve seen someone moon youve called it indecent exposure? Really?
My choice though isn’t it?
Just like it was the cam ops choice to report it [emoji6]
JeffA:
Smashing the gate up shows you what mood they were really in rather than how they act when they know they are being filmed by a 70 year old woman.
I didnt think he had any interaction with the guy in the van - why would the guy in the van even claim it was indecent exposure?
Does it?
Or are you making assumptions?
Was the gate smashed in? Or was it far less damage?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Looks well smashed in to me. Its not like the police are going to take any care with his property - they went there to play the big cheese. Smashing peoples gates is the least of their concerns.
What pics have you seen?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Go see that daily mail article again. Theres a big photo of his smashed gate.
Or are you saying he smashed his own gate then said it was the police? Like all dying pensioners and their wives would I suppose.
JeffA:
Smashing the gate up shows you what mood they were really in rather than how they act when they know they are being filmed by a 70 year old woman.
I didnt think he had any interaction with the guy in the van - why would the guy in the van even claim it was indecent exposure?
Does it?
Or are you making assumptions?
Was the gate smashed in? Or was it far less damage?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Looks well smashed in to me. Its not like the police are going to take any care with his property - they went there to play the big cheese. Smashing peoples gates is the least of their concerns.
What pics have you seen?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Go see that daily mail article again. Theres a big photo of his smashed gate.
Or are you saying he smashed his own gate then said it was the police? Like all dying pensioners and their wives would I suppose.
JeffA:
Smashing the gate up shows you what mood they were really in rather than how they act when they know they are being filmed by a 70 year old woman.
I didnt think he had any interaction with the guy in the van - why would the guy in the van even claim it was indecent exposure?
Why would the guy claim it?
Erm… because he was there?
Or he reported what he’d seen and the police arrested for the offence they believed it constitutes?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
So everytime youve seen someone moon youve called it indecent exposure? Really?
My choice though isn’t it?
Just like it was the cam ops choice to report it [emoji6]
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
It would be a very silly choice tho. And I would hope a grown-up would suggest “call it what it was - mooning”
JeffA:
Smashing the gate up shows you what mood they were really in rather than how they act when they know they are being filmed by a 70 year old woman.
I didnt think he had any interaction with the guy in the van - why would the guy in the van even claim it was indecent exposure?
Why would the guy claim it?
Erm… because he was there?
Or he reported what he’d seen and the police arrested for the offence they believed it constitutes?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
So everytime youve seen someone moon youve called it indecent exposure? Really?
My choice though isn’t it?
Just like it was the cam ops choice to report it [emoji6]
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
It would be a very silly choice tho. And I would hope a grown-up would suggest “call it what it was - mooning”
What you mean is: I disagree and I’ll stamp my feet.
He’s a public employee with the right to conduct his duties free of abuse and harassment.
You are wrong then - according to this even showing your todger isnt always indecent exposure:
“In the ■■■■■■ Offences Act 2003, indecent exposure is outlined as intentionally showing your ■■■■■■■■ in a public place in order to cause alarm or distress. Indecent exposure is categorised as a crime of ‘specific intent’. This means that in cases where someone’s genitalia is exposed it must also be done with that intention. For example, the offence would not have been committed if someone were simply urinating in a public place and this had resulted in the “exposure” of genitalia unless that act itself was done to cause alarm or distress”
The incident by any interpretation was to show his contempt of speed cameras.
He can argue intent…hence the need for him to be nicked and interviewed (letter? [emoji1787]) If it goes to court he’ll struggle to argue it.
It may well be they don’t charge indecent exposure but pursue harassment, alarm or distress
JeffA:
You are wrong then - according to this even showing your todger isnt always indecent exposure:
“In the ■■■■■■ Offences Act 2003, indecent exposure is outlined as intentionally showing your ■■■■■■■■ in a public place in order to cause alarm or distress. Indecent exposure is categorised as a crime of ‘specific intent’. This means that in cases where someone’s genitalia is exposed it must also be done with that intention. For example, the offence would not have been committed if someone were simply urinating in a public place and this had resulted in the “exposure” of genitalia unless that act itself was done to cause alarm or distress”
I am wrong?
Nope.
I can take a ■■■■ legally in broad daylight in certain circumstances.(even taking a leak can see you done)
The need to take a leak isn’t the same as exposing yourself out of contempt or to cause distress