Body cameras for police

STATES police officers are to wear cameras to record criminals as part of a new approach to policing the Island.

Inspector Sarah Henderson with a new police camera
Inspector Sarah Henderson with a new police camera

STATES police officers are to wear cameras to record criminals as part of a new approach to policing the Island.

The devices, which will be worn on an officer’s chest, will be trialled by a small number of uniformed PCs during the next six months and will become more widely used if they prove to be a success.

It is hoped that the cameras will force more criminals to admit to their actions and plead guilty, which in turn would remove the need of a costly trial.

Inspector Sarah Henderson, who is leading the project, said: ‘The use of body-worn cameras has been common place in the UK for many years and it is something we think we can benefit from here.'

Comments for: "Body cameras for police"

realityCHECK

Yes because its so dangerous over here isnt it! ......invasion of public privicy? I can see these being misused by the cluster of corruption!

Gwasbach

What a crass comment; far from being a reality check it is nonsense.

The cameras will only record what the police officers see with the Mark 1 eyeball.

They will also ensure that the cops act appropriately, within the law and make it almost impossible for them to 'gild the lily.'

Pierre

Which way round will they be facing? I hope it's outwards?

Bobby

They should probably just cut to the chase & attach a camera and GPS to every newborn.

Gwasbach

Body cameras are a brilliant bit of kit; however I fail to see why the States of Jersey Police needs a trial, when this sort of equipment has been tried and tested in the U.K.

Althought I was brought up in Jersey, I currently work as an Enforcement Officer with a local authority in the U.K. and have used body cameras for a number of years.

They certainly help to negate malicious complaints against officers and provide excellent evidence of wrongdoing.

In addition to this advantages the CCTV footage can often obviate the need to write a long narrative, describing what occurred when an officer deals with a suspect. Adopting this kit will bring the S.o.J.P. into the 21st century.

Postman Patrick

Here we go . Next step in becoming a police state. Read Orwell 1984 , all coming true. Whatever next for our little rock ? . Water cannons, barbed wire fencing,helicopter gun ships, tear gas and of course riot police. We know the rest of the Eastern Europeans are due next January but this is taking the possible situation a bit too far. God help us if this is what Jersey is to come to.

Cynic

Ahhhh, another bandwagoner who quotes 'Orwell 1984' and spews hyperbole.

How many more commenters want to draw stupid comparisons? How many more people want to sit blinkered with their fingers in their ears repeating "Little old Jersey...we don't want".

Hard evidence of debauchery on the night time economy and of general Antisocial behaviour can only save time and ultimately money. Money that would otherwise be wasted in the judicial system with Not Guilty pleas.

Bill

The hard evidence of debauchery is self-serving insofar as it justifies the Orwellian armoury of public servants.

The warholian irony of the uniformer social inadequates is offset by the magnitude of their perceived powers, especially when armed at our expense with the latest ego-massagers.

A "Mr Small" can become someone very big when his epaulettes come out to play.

Lord Haw Haw

Thesaurus overuse methinks !

Bill

Well, the linguistic enrichment was wholy extemporised with corresponding dearth of referential tome.

The response of bombast was reflective of the originating pomposity. Those who like to hold forth and to distemper the views of others should consider that they, in turn, are prone to be subject to the mere hyperbole which they actively seek to disparage.

Lord Haw Haw

Maybe you should get out more.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

Hmmm, er, yes; quite...

Gwasbach

To quote Benjamin Disraeli “Inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination” He could have been speaking about Bill.

Disraeli's apprentice

Or even Old Bill!

Oh dear team

Dude. . . Get a life. . . .

Bill (old)

To quote William Franklin “Inebriated with the exuberance of his own ability to recite quotations, and gifted with an egotistical imagination” He could have been speaking about Gwasbach. :)

God's Mentor

...and of course the cameras will ensure that the Police officers retain the utmost professionalism when carrying out their duties.

Concerned

Will the film be disclosed to those who are arrested or who are involved in an incident?

The report, tellingly, says nothing about this important aspect.

I Pasdenom

Concerned, "Will the film be disclosed to those who are arrested or who are involved in an incident?..."

I do hope so, my last three visits to court all came about because the officers lied and fabricated evidence; if I'd had this footage I'd have won the one I lost without a shadow of doubt, and the other two where I had to prove my innocence (back-to-front justice!) would've been over quicker, luckily the cops where caught on CCTV which proved their testimony to be fabricated and false.

Of course all 5 officers are still working and collecting their huge salaries.

I suspect any footage of police wrongdoing will be quickly deleted.

Euan Mee

And of course if their evidence was found to be fabricated, they would automatically be charged with perjury. Don't remember that one, which suggests you're the one telling porkies...

Francis

Err.... the point of the post was that the gentleman did not have the footage that he needed- had he done so, then it is possible that perjury might have been charged, although I have to say that I woudn't hold my breath there, even where there is evidence....

Mei ein Yu

Actually Francis, the point of the post was the total disrespect for the law that the individual has, (cannot use the term Gentleman in this case)

The poster infers that they have had numerous visits to court which were genuine and the cases were lost due to compelling evidence because, as stated, only the *last* three were due to alleged lies and fabrications.

Considering the posterm multiple appearances in court were "lost", its more likely that insufficient evidence was provided in the final few cases, even though the poster was guilty, rather than fabricated evidence.

Renegade

I also think it's a bit of a leap to say that because there wasn't an open court trial of Police Officers charged with perjury that what he says isn't true Euan.

Police Officers who file a false report can be disciplined, they may also have claimed to have made an honest mistake e.g as to the identity of an offender which wouldn't be perjury in itself.

Francis

No, I would say that the point of the post was that the gentleman did not have the footage that he needed- had he done so, then it is possible that perjury might have been charged.

The value of this kind of evidence is readily apparent when one consider the probative issues with which the gentleman was confronted.

I Pasdenom

Mei ei Yu: "Actually Francis, the point of the post was the total disrespect for the law that the individual has, (cannot use the term Gentleman in this case)..."

Actually Mei ei Yu, you're completely wrong in just about everything you've said.

I have a greater respect for the law than many people I know, and people who know me would tell you such; I'll remind you that in the 3 specific cases I was talking about I can prove that my respect for the law was greater than the lying officers involved.

I inferred nothing, I stated clearly that I was taking about 3 specific cases, and none since or before; your prejudice is noted.

You state that it is more likely I was guilty when cases against me were lost; wrong again, you're showing prejudice again.

As prejudice as you seem to be, I'm sure you're just posting without really putting thought to what you're glibly accusing innocent people of, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your a proper gentleman, and will respectfully now offer your apology.??

TWOB

Jersey many years behind the uk, no change there then !

Simple Sid

I'm not exactly a fan of the Police and wonder why good old back to basics Bobbys on the beat can't work in Jersey it is not as if we are riddled with crime, someone in procurement likes gadgets.

Tax Payer

Two of my relations used to be honoraries in different parishes.

All police should have these as it is standard procedure amongst trouble makers to scream police brutality when the police are forced to lay a finger on them.

The cameras will show what unpleasant scum many of the drunks are when arrested and violent drunks I believe make up most of the crime in Jersey.

Rogers

It follows that members of the public should carry these devices as well, in order to record any incidents.

Simple Sid

I agree with you Rogers it should be the other way round as the authorities would close ranks anyway.

Kevin Kettler (G8 IT'S A KNOCKOUT)

......it also serves as excellent evidence of wrongdoing by officers, provided that they haven't "accidentally" switched the camera off or covered up their lapel numbers....

Mo

OMG party time, seriously so not necessary... what a larf and no they won't keep the utmost professionalism. Camera can tell many stories but also camera can delete alot of stores. No win really

C Le Verdic

It looks a painful shape for the usual threatened destination of an unwelcome camera.

The Thinker

At the end of the day one of the primary roles of the Police is to collect evidence of wrong doing and present it before a Court of Law. Seems to me that it would be extremely foolish not to use modern technology to achieve this role.

Over the years the Police have 'lost' many cases in Court where an Officer has given one version of events and the accused another. Anything that can assist at getting at the truth is surely a thing for the good. Or do I sense that some people might be concerned about being filmed when they are breaking the Law ?

Harry

Surely the duty of the police is to collect evidence of wrongdoing but also to look for evidence which might exonerate someone or otherwise eliminate them from inquiries?

One wonders whether the camera antics will be as one-sided as you envisage, or whether the recordings will be disclosed to those involved without the obstructions and other tactics which often befall the disclosure process.

It will be interesting to see what the data protection Commissioner's view will be- perhaps we can reasonably expect a practice notice to be issued to the police in early course.

The Thinker

Harry I deliberately kept my submission short - perhaps you didn't fully appreciate the key line of - 'Anything that can assist at getting at the truth is surely a thing for the good'. (So yes I absolutely accept that any relevant evidence collected by the Police of whatever nature should be put before a Court so that the have a complete a picture as possible to determine the truth).

Harry

No, I am afraid that your key line was not tempered by further comment which might have acted as a balance- your desire for brevity made your comment appear to show disregard for, or at least a lack of recognition of due process and the laws of evidence.

One might also venture to hope that, in the search for the truth which you identify, an officer may actively seek exonerating circumstances as well as the more usual and keenly sought incriminating- the latter may be more attractive to the ambitious officer but, as you now seem to appreciate, the former is of at least equal importance within a properly run police service.

For that reason, I wait with interest to see what provisions, legal or otherwise, will be put into effect with regard to the disclosure of camera footage to those who are involved with officers. I hope that such faith does not prove to have been mere optimism.

Loco

Everyone has video cameras on their phones these days. Record *everything* when you have to speak to the police. Also - only say the absolute minimum, if anything at all, without your lawyer present.

The police are only going to use anything you say to try an incriminate you - your lawyer has no evidence of your side of events during an arrest, so it's hard for them to argue against what the police say. Record the situation, or ask someone to record it for you, and keep your mouth shut.

Queen's Counsel

Good advice that, Loco.

The standard advocates' advice to anyone detained is to say nothing.

Fortunately, the right to silence remains intact in Jersey, unlike the position in the united kingdowm, where a court or a jury can "draw an inference" where someone exercises what is a fundamental right.

Staying silent is doubly important where a member of the public knows, or suspects, that an officer has covert recording equipment on his or her person.

Ted

Ha ha ha, you paranoid gangsta wannabe's make me laugh. The Police are out and about arresting fol mouthed, drunken, aggressive idiots, housebreakers, drug dealers.......and you lot make it seem like they are arresting and hassling church goers on a Sunday morning. Wake up, stop talking nonsense and get a grip.

Queen's Counsel

Well, it certinly sounds like you have given the matter some intelligent thought there, Ted :)

Loco

Totally appreciate that the police are generally correct in suspicions for arrests and usually get it right, but they don't always. Police also have a tendency to stick together as a team, even when proven wrong, as we saw with the Curtis Warren bugging case.

The point is mistakes happen and we've all heard of cases where people have been released from jail after having been found not guilty years later when more evidence has come to light.

The US Miranda statement states 'Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law.' Note that it doesn't say anything you say can be used in your *defence*. That is - you can only make your situation worse by speaking... nothing you say is going to help your case.

Simple Sid

Ted you haven't got a clue what crime is, Jersey is a low crime paradise.

I Pasdenom

Not paranoia if it's happened to you more than once; the majority of Police I've had dealings with have been less than competent, and on more than one occasion they've been criminally worse than that.

Tax Payer

Perhaps it would be best for wrong doers not to say things to police when arrested like 'I will burn down your house, I will rape your daughter' as was said to one of my relations when dealing with scum

Paul

Well, hopefully the cameras will prevent the officers from behaving in such a way.

Henry

Paul, I'm still laughing at your comment...hilarious!

That said, I believe these devices will serve as a form of protection for the officer, the suspect and most of all the truth.

However, if footage--crucial to a suspect's version of the facts--is missing or corrupted, then the officer's version must be rejected.

The Thinker

Sounds good advice if you have got something to hide. If of course you have done nothing wrong I would suggest that you as as open and helpful to the Police as possible. This island would be a sad and miserable place to live without the Police doing their job.

Rogers

By the same token, the police will of course not object to disclosing any footage, nor presumably will they object to being filmed themselves. If they have nothing to hide, then no officer can validly object.

Simple Sid

Paul well put.

Stu

Why does everybody get all excited by such things like this. You all know deep down that law abiding citizens can, do and will go about their business as normal with some even going up to our friendly bobby's and smiling into the camera's. However and here is the shocking part that a lot of you fail to see or clearly don't want to see........gosh......well you don't say........ The Police will use evidence caught on these camera's to assist in prosecuting offenders. Yep you got it in one......those offenders you see being violent, drunken yon ish idiots that you are the first to point out and say " why are they not dealt with more harshly". You sofa bobby's do make me laugh.

Simon

The purpose of the recording is to gather evidence. The recording should, if used properly, have another purpose, this being to exonerate or eliminate suspects.

the recordings will also provide a valuable supervisory function with regard to the practices of the police. Naturally, we can anticipate these recordings being made available to involved parties. As your post implies, if the police officers have nothing to hide then they will have nothing to fear.

It is good to see that the matter of police procedures and the laws of evidence is something which causes you to be amused. I understand that the police complaints bureau is always on the look out for people with your mindset.

I want one!

Can I get one of these for when I go out in town?

I would like to record some of the police officers attitudes that i have encountered on several nights out.. Or, even better, some of the bouncers attitudes as well?

;)

Jan

Perhaps the police will offer them for sale to the public at cost price. After all, if they have nothing to hide then I am sure that they have nothing to fear and will surely welcome such a thing.

Overpopulated

I am sure you can buy it yourself on line or better still use you iphone that is what they are for isn't it?

I cannot see the problem with this, people don't get arrested unless they have done something wrong - being drunk disorderly and possibly violent is criminal and you would get the police giving you a hard time for this sort of behaviour.

Renegade

You should look on Youtube, ever since the advent of camera phones there are loads of videos of people breaking the law or acting aggressively, including Police Officers.

It's very interesting to see how strongly the Police object to being recorded, though I remember reading Michael Manfield's memoirs when he said that when an officer is in the spotlight themselves, their newfound respect for human rights is most touching...! :-)

Jan

Quite right. I agree. I too cannot see a problem with this -abuse of office is criminal and you would get the courts giving the officer concerned a hard time for this sort of behaviour.

As has been said above, if they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear from the public carrying cameras.

Paul

Fair point about the ipads but really you would need something fixed, particularly if you need your hands free to defend yourself against an officer.

blade

ref "I want one" (15)

Yes and the “bouncers” can video with audio the disgusting abuse by the many adults that cannot accept the fact that they are to drunk to enter licensed premises.

And on many occasions are not only verbally aggressive by being told “no” for the first time in their lives but by becoming physically violent as well. The use of personal cameras is a step in the right direction for the protection of both parties.

All employees in any business who deal with the public should have video to prove what actually happened in any given situation.

This is standard kit in many countries including the UK specifically for this purpose.

Steroid Management

Unfortunately, many do not behave in a professional way, which is why some form of camera supervision of door staff would be a very good idea. If they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear.

Advocate of the BAR

The biggest mistake people make when they are questioned, cautioned and/arrested is they open their mouths. Say NOTHING!! The Police are there to gather evidence AGAINST YOU, they will be in Court AGAINST YOU. Your Lawyer will have an easier job if you say sweet nothing and give a NO COMMENT interview - it is your right to do so.

Renegades

Words to live by, my friend.

Citizen

An actual conversation I had while back at Uni around ten years ago in the Midlands while on my way home from a club:

Police Officer : Good evening Sir, how are you?

Citizen : Good evening Officer.

Police Officer : On your way home are you?

Citizen : Do I have to answer your questions, or am I free to go?

Police Officer : We've had a few break ins in the area, we'd just like to take your details for the record, what's your full name?

Citizen : I am afraid I have nothing to say Officer, am I free to go?

Police Officer : Look, you're not in any trouble mate, we're just ticking the boxes, just give us your name, you can be on your way.

Citizen : Am I free to go?

Police Officer : Are you known to us, is that why you don't want to tell us who you are?

Citizen: Am I free to go?

Police Officer : We can just place you under arrest and check your prints at if you want mate.

Citizen : Am I free to go?

(Officer walks off to one side to talk into his radio while his colleague stays with me and returns a couple of minutes later).

Police Officer : Right, on your way.

Awsach

You got of lightly. They don't normally like smart@rses.

I Pasdenom

Citizen, I similar experience I had with SoJ Police.

Plod, Do you know why I've stopped you?

Me, No.

Plod, well we've had a lot of reports of stolen vehicles.

Me, Are you saying you've had a report that this car was stolen?

Plod, No, but other cars.

Me, Sorry, you've stopped me because I'm driving a car that hasn't been reported stolen?

Plod, Well it's 2am.

Me, So? Was there a curfew announced I don't know about?

Plod, And you were speeding.

Me, No I wasn't.

Plod, you were driving at 60-70mph

Me, No I wasn't, you're mistaken, or lying. And how did you come to that speed?

Plod, from our speedometer while following you.

Me, You pulled out at First Tower, if I was doing 60 you must've been doing 120mph! If you were why no lights or siren? That's dangerous driving your admitting to if you're telling the truth, which you can't be.

Plod, Blow into this please.

Me, Okay, but you're only doing this to be difficult and waste my time.

Plod, That's what you get for being a dick. (actual quote)

He also gave me an RT1 form to present licence and insurance at Parish Hall, despite me having them with me he refused to look at them, because he only wanted to be difficult an inconvenience me for no reason.

This is a Public Servant on probably 2-3 times the average wage.

Lord Haw Haw

Sounds like you were being a bit of a dick. If it had been your car stolen and then recovered by way of a random check by an officer acting on information you would have surely been grateful.

Debbie

That comment, "LHH" together with your description, says more about you than you might wish to disclose.

It would be abundantly clear to any reasonable person that the officers in the given scenario did not act reasonably. Further to this, some of their activities would seem to have been in breach of procedure and perhaps the law.

An officer of any arm of the state has a duty to act reasonably, proportionately and in accordance with the laws which they purport to uphold.

Thirtysomething

I dunno, Doesn't sound like a random check at all, stopping a car at 2am...

It sounds like the officer wanted to check if the driver had been drinking, quite reasonable considering the time, and simply getting out the car and having a friendly chat would have resolved this. (even giving the officer an opportunity to smell your breath)

It has happened to me a couple of times when I was younger, but after a short chat and a quick check on vehicle ownership I carried on. A respect for the law and an understanding of their job allowed me to continue without any incident.

The attitude given for simply being stopped just aggravated the situation rather than calm it.

I Pasdenom

The officers shouldn't have lied then, they should've asked if I'd been drinking, they should've checked my ID and ownership details when offered and they shouldn't have been abusive to an innocent member of the Public.

Are you really happy that the Police can stop you without ANY reasonable reason? Drinking? shouldn't they stop EVERY car then? if not then how can you claim it doesn't sound random?

I respect the law, and I had a better understanding of it than these officers showed that night.

It was entirely their attitude that caused the incident, and they can and probably have or will do this to other innocent people because their colleagues refuse to act.

Thirtysomething

Am I really happy that the Police can stop me without any APPARENT reason? Yes! Absolutely!

I count a number of Police officers as friends, both in Jersey and in the UK, and I understand that part of their training is to act on their instincts.

And to investigate those instincts, which may not always be correct.

If one had a feeling that something was not right with your late night driving, after club kicking out hours, they *should* look into it further, after all, you might have been drinking, or on drugs!

Simply being polite would have alleviated the officers suspicion and all would have been well.

But as you point out, you acted like a d**k (psychologically aggressive, not physical or verbal, I will make clear), questioning everything said, which, as a natural progression caused a defensive reaction from the officer in question. I agree that it was an overreaction on the officers part, but you took the offensive in the first place, so equal blame is on you.

By questioning the officers original statement, you only aggravated the officer’s suspicion of wrongdoing, which simply encourages the officer to delve further into the motive for your attitude. Were you trying to hide something? Why would you act so aggressive to a simple stop and check? These are questions that the officer was simply trying to answer.

Whilst we have only your version of events to draw conclusions, the fault started with your attitude towards the simple request to stop, by acting, like you said, like a d**k.

Moderate

Well, Thirtysomething, I suppose the response to your message would be that some of us are followers and conformists, while others. quite properly, question the exercise of authority and ensure that it is so exercised in a proper and lawful way.

It really depends upon the extent of one's backbone, I would imagine.

I Pasdenom

Thirtysomething "Am I really happy that the Police can stop me without any APPARENT reason? Yes!..."

Not the question I asked; but what was the apparent reasoning behind them stopping me? they claimed it was to do with reports of stolen vehicles, it clearly wasn't they were lying.

"...part of their training is to act on their instincts..."

They shouldn't instinctively lie surely? their instinct shouldn't be to be abusive to innocent members of the public; or do you think this is acceptable?

"...And to investigate those instincts..."

They had no intention of any investigation, they were just out to intimidate somebody for the entertainment of it; otherwise why on stopping a car their instinct told them MUST be stolen did they not ask who owned it?

"...If one had a feeling that something was not right with your late night driving, after club kicking out hours, they *should* look into..."

Fair enough, but they couldn't say what it was they took issue with and instead fabricated stories; why?

"...Simply being polite..."

I was it didn't, they weren't polite, or even reasonable or even honest.

"...But as you point out, you acted like a d**k..."

If you think being polite and reasonable is being a dick I pity you and the effect you have on society.

Thirtysomething

The point was that what is apparent to an officer may not be apparent to me or you.

I may believe that I am a good driver, but the officer behind me may see me apparently weaving about the road, and reasonably assume I was intoxicated. Just like those people on TV programs like X factor believe that they are good singers, but are not.

In your case, it was not apparent to *YOU* why you were stopped, yet the officer had a suspicion that something was up, It could have been your driving, (I have not seen you drive) combined with the time (club kicking-out time) that made the officer suspect you had been drinking.

Simply stopping you to actually see your eyes and reactions as well as talking to you will give an indication of alcohol or drug use which would be investigated further.

With no other indication of anything untoward, you would be left to continue.

Now, you claim that the officer lied about stolen vehicles, but you don't know if he or she lied. You didn’t allow the officer to explain. They may have asked you if you had seen anyone acting unusual, and that would have been the end of it, but instead you reacted to the statement with sarcasm and attacked the officers motives.

Perhaps the further "lies" were simply to gauge your reactions. You already acted like a d**k so perhaps there was something else wrong. A weapon perhaps, or drugs in the car?

Innocent members of the public should not be so aggressive towards an officer for simply stopping them. Why did you react so aggressively if you were innocent.

They simply reacted to your comments. In your description of the incident, there was no intimidation on the officers part until your own acts of intimidation. Your own statement did not suggest that they stopped you because your car was stolen, only that there was cars that were stolen.

Your own statement of events shows that your attitude was not polite, even if your manner was. You questioned the officers motives before they even explained the situation, as such, you acted like a d**k.

Now, Understandably, as it is human nature, you feel that you are the innocent bystander and did nothing wrong. I do not argue that the officer perhaps went too far, but the onus was on you to remain polite and reasonable. You failed by questioning the original statement that "well we’ve had a lot of reports of stolen vehicles."

Fault lays on both sides.

Paul

Just like on the x factor, many officers believe that they are good officers.

That is why they will no doubt encourage and welcome their being filmed by the public- the footage could provide valuable feedback when sent to senior officers, which will then improve the service, so everyone wins. I expect that the senior officers will be happy to publicise an email link to which public footage of the officers' antics may be sent.

Of course, the only officers who might object will be those who have something to hide.

I Pasdenom

Lord Haw Haw, PLEASE explain what I should've done differently when being accused and abused by lying incompetent Police officers acting without reason and (as it turned out to be the case later) in a criminal manner?

What would YOU have done?

I know it's standard practice in these comment section to accuse someone of something or make unfounded ridiculous comments, then when questioned not bother replying, hoping nobody will notice that you've been shown to be wrong or foolish, but PLEASE don't do it this time and ANSWER the above.

Bill

The last time I made a comment, his response was "maybe you should get out more". That was the extent of his contribution. Maybe he should follow his own advice! :)

Lord Haw Haw

Dear “I Pasdenom”,

As you are surely aware, the use of capital letters in a reply is seen as shouting. As we only have your version of events we should not jump to the conclusion that the police officer was wrong and judging by your animated response and the liberal use of capital letters it would be safe to assume that your fuse may be shorter than others. Possibly your actions on the night in question led the officer to believe that you had something to hide?

Anyway, to answer your questions, what I would have done would to have greeted the officer (upon stopping) with a polite good morning and answered his questions when asked. Having had a few cars stolen from myself in the past (all of them in the middle of the night) I would have been pleased that he was acting on information and attempting to keep crime levels down. A breath test is often asked for after a vehicle stop and if requested to do so I would have been happy to provide one. Anyone who has seen the effects of drink driving would acknowledge that this is an acceptable course of action. Our police are far from perfect and if you read the UK news you will also notice that this is seemingly endemic at the moment. However, generally they do a good job and have to deal with the arse end of society on a nightly basis and don’t always appreciate attempts at sarcasm.

… and no, I am not a copper, nor have I ever been one.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Bill

The thesaurus overuse methinks ! :)

Penny

It answers the question in so far as your own blind compliance is revealed, but it does not answer the broad question which was put to you with regard to the proper exercise of official powers and the reasonable response of public servants when questioned by their tax paying paymasters.

Captain Caveman

I hardly think that the odd long word is thesaurus overuse Bill. Perhaps you needed one to look up any words with more than one syllable but I think that most of us understood.

The Suarus

When you speak of "most of us", Captain Caveman, are you taking into account the silent majority, or do you presume to speak on their behalf as well?

Gwyneth

I guess one could say that "Lord Haw Haw" needs to get out more, more! :)

PJG

Well at least the officer was observant

He called you a dick

He saw you at 2am and thought your manner of driving was suspicious

The beast of Jersey (paisnel) was caught during a routeen traffic stop

He was protecting us all, you included

Frank

No, Mr Paisnel was not caught during a "routeen traffic stop". He drove through a red traffic light at the junction of Route du Fort and St Clement's Road and was subsequently convicted, without a jury, of a string of offences on rather weak and wholly circumstantial evidence.