No it isn’t …but it may lead to you exposing your ■■■■■■■■
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Is that footage from the incident…?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
Is that footage from the incident…?Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Nah I thought it was you, I was just proving what you said. 
robroy:
Monkey241:
Is that footage from the incident…?Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Nah I thought it was you, I was just proving what you said.
I reckon you’ve got a few years on me Rob
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
LazyDriver:
Monkey241:
Why wasn’t it dealt with by post?
Because interview and identification was necessary.Monkey241:
But here we have an offence that could well see the man on the ■■■ Offenders Register with an almost immediate identification.Oops… [emoji14]
Why oops?
Identification was necessary… though the suspect was fairly obvious (but the car may not have been driven by him).
Suspect’s intent also needs covering in interview.
No oops about itSent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
In my first post where I suggested it could have been handled by post, I did say that he could have bern invited in to the local nick for ‘an interview’.
Even when the coppers were bent down calling through the letterbox, why couldn’t they just have said that if the door isn’t opened, they’d be writing to him, to invite him for interview? Stating ‘you’re only making matters worse for yourself’ or words to that effect.
And what identification more than they already had was needed?
It’s apparent to me that they went there with one course of action in mind, and wasn’t willing or able to react to the developing situation.
Having said that, the guy is a proper muppet, I mean who gets done twice by the same camera!
Oh, and the oops was for the contradiction… 
LazyDriver:
Monkey241:
LazyDriver:
Monkey241:
Why wasn’t it dealt with by post?
Because interview and identification was necessary.Monkey241:
But here we have an offence that could well see the man on the ■■■ Offenders Register with an almost immediate identification.Oops… [emoji14]
Why oops?
Identification was necessary… though the suspect was fairly obvious (but the car may not have been driven by him).
Suspect’s intent also needs covering in interview.
No oops about itSent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
In my first post where I suggested it could have been handled by post, I did say that he could have bern invited in to the local nick for ‘an interview’.
Even when the coppers were bent down calling through the letterbox, why couldn’t they just have said that if the door isn’t opened, they’d be writing to him, to invite him for interview? Stating ‘you’re only making matters worse for yourself’ or words to that effect.
And what identification more than they already had was needed?
It’s apparent to me that they went there with one course of action in mind, and wasn’t willing or able to react to the developing situation.
Having said that, the guy is a proper muppet, I mean who gets done twice by the same camera!
Oh, and the oops was for the contradiction…
What more identification was potentially needed?
ID by the complainant. There was no contradiction. Up to the point police attended the dots hadn’t been joined up on who the driver of the car was. Because the car was registered to that address it still needed confirmation on who the driver was. No doubt the camera op gave a description of the suspect which police confirmed at the house…but if he didn’t admit the offence it still requires ID by the complainant.
One of the reasons for arrest is to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the suspect…
Notice the word prompt?
What in the behaviour of a suspect that refuses to open the door suggests to any rational human being that writing to him will speed up the frigging investigation?
As pointed out before - this muppet as you helpfully call him could have drastically limited the effects of his stupidity.
Instead he chose to compound it. CPS might have dropped it, they may still; they may also charge a different offence.
But I’ll guarantee one of the arguments advanced to pursue an offence is to deter further harassment of public servants
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Who said he’d been done twice by the same camera? [emoji6]
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
One things certain - they wont be charging him with indecent exposure because showing your bottom isnt indecent exposure. If theres a crime of “making coppers look a bit silly” then he still might get charged.
Monkey241:
Who said he’d been done twice by the same camera? [emoji6]Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
From the original article,
"Darrell said: “It is something I had always wanted to do because I’d been caught by them a couple of times for silly speeds like 35mph in a 30 zone and it always bugged me”
Monkey241:
LazyDriver:
Monkey241:
What more identification was potentially needed?ID by the complainant. Really? This early in an investigation? I’ve heard of restorative justice, bringing victim and perb face to face, but that is usually after trial and conviction. Or maybe a line up in the guy’s living room, sided by his wife and the family cat. …but if he didn’t admit the offence it still requires ID by the complainant.
One of the reasons for arrest is to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the suspect…
Notice the word prompt?
and here lays the rub of it. The perception that plod goes hell for leather in the pursuit of a minor misdemeanor when involving one of their own, yet more serious crimes against Joe public are left uninvestigated.What in the behaviour of a suspect that refuses to open the door suggests to any rational human being that writing to him will speed up the frigging investigation?
It would have been a more effective use of resource, taken the heat out of the situation, and not have contributed to the already tarnished image of the police
Ultimately, could this have been handled better? We’re all in agreement that the perb could have, and should have done so, but the Police are culpable for inciting and inflaming the situation too.
JeffA:
One things certain - they wont be charging him with indecent exposure because showing your bottom isnt indecent exposure. If theres a crime of “making coppers look a bit silly” then he still might get charged.
We covered that
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
LazyDriver:
Monkey241:
Who said he’d been done twice by the same camera? [emoji6]Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
From the original article,
"Darrell said: “It is something I had always wanted to do because I’d been caught by them a couple of times for silly speeds like 35mph in a 30 zone and it always bugged me”
Caught by them suggests speed cameras in general…
Them suggests a plural of some kind…unless they’re crewed by two (they aren’t)
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
LazyDriver:
Monkey241:
LazyDriver:
Monkey241:
What more identification was potentially needed?ID by the complainant. Really? This early in an investigation? I’ve heard of restorative justice, bringing victim and perb face to face, but that is usually after trial and conviction. Or maybe a line up in the guy’s living room, sided by his wife and the family cat. …but if he didn’t admit the offence it still requires ID by the complainant.
One of the reasons for arrest is to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the suspect…
Notice the word prompt?
and here lays the rub of it. The perception that plod goes hell for leather in the pursuit of a minor misdemeanor when involving one of their own, yet more serious crimes against Joe public are left uninvestigated.What in the behaviour of a suspect that refuses to open the door suggests to any rational human being that writing to him will speed up the frigging investigation?
It would have been a more effective use of resource, taken the heat out of the situation, and not have contributed to the already tarnished image of the police
Restorative justice has nothing to do with an ID. It’s not uncommon to drive a victim past a suspect being detained to get a positive ID. In this scenario a description confirmed by attending police is enough to arrest and interview…but hey! Let’s send a letter [emoji1787]
And the vernacular you’re after is PERP (though perv might fit here quite well [emoji6])
The wife that will appear in the ID parade? Is it the wholly fictitious 70 year old mentioned earlier? I’m assuming the cat will be pressing charges also for being buggered by one of the officers?
Put it in the paper and I’m sure you’d be all for hanging cat buggerers.
Folk like you are Murdoch’s ■■■■■■■■■
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Even I can’t keep up with this tangent! 
eagerbeaver:
JeffA:
So if mooning a police van is indecent exposure what do they call going to the macdonalds drive thru with no trousers on?Can you see them prosecuting this in the cold light of day? It’s just been a complete waste of time and money - which is what the police are best at. I’d get the guy in the speed van and tell him “The next time someone moons you DO NOT report it as indecent exposure so you get 6 police, 3 cars and a helicopter - simply say someone made you feel a bit silly. Maybe even laugh about it”. Certainly if I’d been one of the 6 cops going round to investigate “indecent exposure” I would have been sorely tempted to chin the policeman who had claimed indecent exposure instead of “He mooned the speed van”.
Bad idea to get the copper chopper involved, they are usually spying on ■■■■■■■ women sunbathing in the privacy of their own garden.
A quick Internet search will give you anything you need to know. And coppers wonder why people cannot trust them. I won’t even bother with the more recent disgrace(s) concerning women…
I’ll just bump this up for Beaver, seeing as he’s still in premod oblivion, and feeling a bit lonely.
He put this on today and it only made page 6 for some reason, so he’s feeling a bit left out bless him.
Anyhooo…let’s see who can defend this point, ‘‘Prying perv PCs in choppers’’ would be a good headline…hey maybe they were looking for moody number plates.
Wonder if they get paid…‘hovertime’ rate for this btw. 
…Thank you very much.
robroy:
eagerbeaver:
JeffA:
So if mooning a police van is indecent exposure what do they call going to the macdonalds drive thru with no trousers on?Can you see them prosecuting this in the cold light of day? It’s just been a complete waste of time and money - which is what the police are best at. I’d get the guy in the speed van and tell him “The next time someone moons you DO NOT report it as indecent exposure so you get 6 police, 3 cars and a helicopter - simply say someone made you feel a bit silly. Maybe even laugh about it”. Certainly if I’d been one of the 6 cops going round to investigate “indecent exposure” I would have been sorely tempted to chin the policeman who had claimed indecent exposure instead of “He mooned the speed van”.
Bad idea to get the copper chopper involved, they are usually spying on ■■■■■■■ women sunbathing in the privacy of their own garden.
A quick Internet search will give you anything you need to know. And coppers wonder why people cannot trust them. I won’t even bother with the more recent disgrace(s) concerning women…
I’ll just bump this up for Beaver, seeing as he’s still in premod oblivion, and feeling a bit lonely.
He put this on today and it only made page 6 for some reason, so he’s feeling a bit left out bless him.Anyhooo…let’s see who can defend this point, ‘‘Prying perv PCs in choppers’’ would be a good headline…hey maybe they were looking for moody number plates.
Wonder if they get paid…‘hovertime’ rate for this btw.
Cops are human beings…it may be a shock to some…and there are (like RR`s jokes) good and bad.
The bad ones get hammered by the press, and rightly so, because although we must accept they aren`t perfect, we do expect better than average standards from Cops.
No need to defend the indefensible.
There should be a discussion about Police standards, there should be investigation into what goes wrong and how it can and must be improved.
But that is irrelevant into whether or not this bloke was a numpty.
He is.
And the response was proportionate: A single van to try to talk to him.
More later when he wouldn`t even open the door and talk to them.
Could the camera guy who reported it as “indecent exposure” be prosecuted for wasting police time? He obviously lied about it - if he had said “someone just mooned me” would they have still sent 6 Dibble round?
JeffA:
Could the camera guy who reported it as “indecent exposure” be prosecuted for wasting police time? He obviously lied about it - if he had said “someone just mooned me” would they have still sent 6 Dibble round?
No.
He doesn’t decide the offence
I’m guessing that is a wind up for the obvious reason
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk