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… 
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”.
That’s your problem.
The camera operator has a right not to be subjected to this…and has a right to complain
Again … since you appear to refuse logical thought or dealing in facts, the likelihood is that the camera operator isn’t a police officer.
I’m open to the idea that this MAY have been mishandled as opposed to your knowing it has. The incident lasted 38 minutes, the coppers will have had bodycams…so IPSO can make an informed decisions on little things like facts.
Personally, I’m not getting hung up on emotive arguments like you are.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
I don’t share your faith in ipso much - unless you are Peter Sutcliffe they tend to let police off. In fact if Sutcliffe had been in the police I’m sure he would have been “No furthur actioned”.
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…
The speed van was not in a deserted street.
“Stourbridge Road while his wife went to buy some bread from a nearby Tesco Express.”
He may have shown his bum to the van, but who else was around to see his “front bits”?
We dont need a kid or anyone else to see him, before prosecuting for exposure. (We dont wait for someone to be knocked over before we prosecute for speeding)
Will they prosecute for exposure? Maybe if hed apologised for being silly, and explained it all? Would or wouldnt they? I dunno.
Making such a fuss wont make a nodanawink so easy now, will it?
It`ll be open house for anyone to do anything if they so much as catch cold if he gets let off.
Let’s get real here, our resident Police apologist is saying it’s indecent exposure.
That is a serious offence granted, but mainly ( if not only) because of it’s ‘■■■■■■ offence’ connotations.
In this case this aspect of the offence clearly did not apply,.
Granted it was stupid, but this guy stated the reason, for it,.a mixture of mischief and display of dissatisfaction with the police and theiir ■■■■ speed…(oh sorry,.I meant ‘‘safety’’ ) cameras. 
The whole aftermath of the incident was based on stupidity of the offender,.and over zealousness,.and lack of discretion by the Police, …dressed up as indecent exposure by them to justify it.
I reckon that sums up all aspects of this in a nutshell.
If we go down the “Indecent exposure” route we have to assume this man gets ■■■■■■■■ aroused from baring his bottom to some bloke with a beard in a speed van. Now I’ve got some wierd fetishes myself, but I’ve never heard of anyone becoming aroused through that. Perhaps if the speed camera operator had been wearing bikini ■■■■■■■ and flashing his legs, then it would have been a fair cop.
And lets not “bring the children into it”. You can’t do/watch anything these days without panicking whether or not some little kid saw you and has been traumatised for life. Lets assume it was just what it was - a bloke baring his bottom for a split second to another bloke with a beard in a speed van. There wasn’t a coach full of 8 year old kids going past on their way back from church - and if there was I’m sure they would have done what anyone in their right mind would do - laugh themselves silly. I can’t see too many kids being traumatised at seeing a bloke bare his bottom.
robroy:
it’s indecent exposure.
That is a serious offence granted, but mainly ( if not only) because of it’s ‘■■■■■■ offence’ connotations.
In this case this aspect of the offence clearly did not apply
Does the reason matter for any passing person? Dropping kecks is just that: exposing his bits. Does it matter if its intended as a joke or not to any kid or whatever? His bum was to the van, so his front was to the street and shop. Silly and not with evil intention, so why didnt he just say so, when the first cop arrived?
What would a shy young Mum have to explain to her kid?
“Dont worry dear thats just his todger”
“Oh I see mummy. Just like a ■■■■■, but not as big”
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?
JeffA:
I don’t share your faith in ipso much - unless you are Peter Sutcliffe they tend to let police off. In fact if Sutcliffe had been in the police I’m sure he would have been “No furthur actioned”.
Tend to let police off? [emoji1787]
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
^^
I don’t know how big your todger is Franglais but when I moon someone they don’t tend to see anything other than my bottom. I have to turn round for them to see my todger.
And do we really have to worry about “the children” all the time? I’m sick of the little brats - you can’t do anything fun without them ruining it.
Monkey241:
JeffA:
I don’t share your faith in ipso much - unless you are Peter Sutcliffe they tend to let police off. In fact if Sutcliffe had been in the police I’m sure he would have been “No furthur actioned”.Tend to let police off? [emoji1787]
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Wayne Couzens was driving round with his pants down flashing anyone he saw for decades - he had to murder someone before they bothered. That suggests the police arn’t really “cracking down” on their own.
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?
Always gets personal with you doesn’t it?
You’ve made a judgement here on a snapshot and anyone who disagrees because they can see the illogicality of making a decision without more evidence (kinda the idea that they want proof rather than evidence) must be a weak kneed police fanboy.
If we’re getting real here, the fact is you’re letting your own insecurities regarding the police blind you to the fact that you haven’t got all the facts here.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
JeffA:
^^I don’t know how big your todger is Franglais but when I moon someone they don’t tend to see anything other than my bottom. I have to turn round for them to see my todger.
And do we really have to worry about “the children” all the time? I’m sick of the little brats - you can’t do anything fun without them ruining it.
I don’t give a rats ■■■ if you’re sick of the little brats. [emoji6]
Fortunately you’re not in any position of authority
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
JeffA:
Monkey241:
JeffA:
I don’t share your faith in ipso much - unless you are Peter Sutcliffe they tend to let police off. In fact if Sutcliffe had been in the police I’m sure he would have been “No furthur actioned”.Tend to let police off? [emoji1787]
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Wayne Couzens was driving round with his pants down flashing anyone he saw for decades - he had to murder someone before they bothered. That suggests the police arn’t really “cracking down” on their own.
Decades?
Bit early for hyperbole.
So…by your absurd logic one male murdered an innocent girl, so all men are murderers?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
JeffA:
^^I don’t know how big your todger is Franglais but when I moon someone they don’t tend to see anything other than my bottom. I have to turn round for them to see my todger.
And do we really have to worry about “the children” all the time? I’m sick of the little brats - you can’t do anything fun without them ruining it.
I don’t give a rats ■■■ if you’re sick of the little brats. [emoji6]
Fortunately you’re not in any position of authority
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Unfortunately more like.
“But what if there had been children there?” There wasn’t. And even if there was they would have laughed. Did you ever see anyone moon when you were a kid monkey? Were you traumatised by it?
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 it
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
ID was necessary for what? Someone mooned him - forget about it and move on. I was mooned by football fans from the back of a coach once - I didn’t break down and cry.
JeffA:
Monkey241:
JeffA:
^^I don’t know how big your todger is Franglais but when I moon someone they don’t tend to see anything other than my bottom. I have to turn round for them to see my todger.
And do we really have to worry about “the children” all the time? I’m sick of the little brats - you can’t do anything fun without them ruining it.
I don’t give a rats ■■■ if you’re sick of the little brats. [emoji6]
Fortunately you’re not in any position of authority
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Unfortunately more like.
“But what if there had been children there?” There wasn’t. And even if there was they would have laughed. Did you ever see anyone moon when you were a kid monkey? Were you traumatised by it?
I guess I moved in better circles.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
JeffA:
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
ID was necessary for what? Someone mooned him - forget about it and move on. I was mooned by football fans from the back of a coach once - I didn’t break down and cry.
You didn’t break down and cry?
Good for you.
What’s your point?
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk