NorthernSky
Guru
daft
Play silly games...
- Thread starter Drago
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
Why would they be annoyed? The police deal with nobbers every day. The nobbers dont always shoot themselves in the foot. The onus is on him to prove it isnt alcohol. By pouring it out and not surrendering it for inspection. He has caused himself a big problem. The policeman would have been laughing inside. Where could they move him on to? He was outside his own shop. The police have enough to do without wasting time on this fool. He tried to be smart and was outsmarted. I have no sympathy for him.
OP
OP
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
I here that he's now planning to test the police by going shoplifting and seeing if he gets arrested.
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
Next he’s going to attempt to drink Fosters out of a carrot juice box.
Fnaar
Smutmaster General
- Location
- Thumberland
It started off as a silly test, but it soon snowballed. See what I did there? 
ClichéGuevara
Legendary Member
- Location
- Kingston upon the River Hull
There's no doubt, the guy is an idiot wasting Police time and tax payers money, and he got off lightly in my opinion.
It does raise a question though, presumably the actual drinkers will be decanting their alcohol into other containers. If they now just tip the contents away (down their neck possibly) when challenged, can they walk, as it seems the precedent is that the container was the issue? How would the Police prove it was alcohol?
It does raise a question though, presumably the actual drinkers will be decanting their alcohol into other containers. If they now just tip the contents away (down their neck possibly) when challenged, can they walk, as it seems the precedent is that the container was the issue? How would the Police prove it was alcohol?
OP
OP
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Police officers are considered professional witnesses for identifying 'intoxicating liquor' and herbal cannabis. Basically, if a sworn police officer says its grog, then it is.
ClichéGuevara
Legendary Member
- Location
- Kingston upon the River Hull
Do you have a link to some evidence for that? An 'expert' witness has certain requirements. I can see a Police Officer being able to offer a comment along the lines of "I was of the opinion that it was alcohol/cannabis because.." and then list some behaviours, but I would suspect it would require more concrete evidence than that for proof if the accused challenged the opinion. They may well have got away with claims such as that, but I'd be intrigued to see a link supporting them as 'expert witnesses' on such things when it was challenged.
OP
OP
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Google it if you don't believe me. I was only a copper for 26 1/2 years so what the fudge would i know?
Police officers are trained to identify herbal cannabis from its unique appearance, texture and aroma, and will cite the date of their training in their statements, and they are thus trained, professional witnesses. Certainly in the 2 farces in which I served every officer was trained to be able to do that (it takes half a morning), and probably a quarter are also also authorised field testers and can identify other substances to the satisfaction of the court.
As for alcohol and drunkeness, its simply accepted in the explannatory notes of the legislation that a sworn police officers opinion in that regard will be accepted by the court in the absence of quantifiable evidence to the contrary. They come in to contact with more drunk people in possession of alcohol than any one else in society, so are thus have more experience on the matter than anyone else - there is no one better acquainted with alcohol and drunkeness to challenge them.
Some bobbies - such as myself BITD - are also DIRFIT (Drug Identification and Recognition Field Impairment Training) trained and can evidence a persons unfitness to drive through drink or drugs without the requirement for breath, saliva or blood testing. Indeed, DIRFIT is very clever and a practioner will recognise the physical reactions necessary to identify even the individual type of drug the driver may have taken. While DIRFIT is legal it is not used much, as the only trainers qualified to teach ito the the level approved by the Home Office are in the US, and its a but expensive to send bobbies to LA for training. There was an American living in the UK who was qualified and sworn in as a special so he could teach it, but since he retired to cyprus 6 or 7 years ago no one has taken his place, so there aren't many DIRFIT qualified bobbies left now. A very popular system in the States and you'll see it on the Cops type TV shows, but very neglected here now, which is a shame after all the effort that was made to get it approved at the turn of the century.
Police officers are trained to identify herbal cannabis from its unique appearance, texture and aroma, and will cite the date of their training in their statements, and they are thus trained, professional witnesses. Certainly in the 2 farces in which I served every officer was trained to be able to do that (it takes half a morning), and probably a quarter are also also authorised field testers and can identify other substances to the satisfaction of the court.
As for alcohol and drunkeness, its simply accepted in the explannatory notes of the legislation that a sworn police officers opinion in that regard will be accepted by the court in the absence of quantifiable evidence to the contrary. They come in to contact with more drunk people in possession of alcohol than any one else in society, so are thus have more experience on the matter than anyone else - there is no one better acquainted with alcohol and drunkeness to challenge them.
Some bobbies - such as myself BITD - are also DIRFIT (Drug Identification and Recognition Field Impairment Training) trained and can evidence a persons unfitness to drive through drink or drugs without the requirement for breath, saliva or blood testing. Indeed, DIRFIT is very clever and a practioner will recognise the physical reactions necessary to identify even the individual type of drug the driver may have taken. While DIRFIT is legal it is not used much, as the only trainers qualified to teach ito the the level approved by the Home Office are in the US, and its a but expensive to send bobbies to LA for training. There was an American living in the UK who was qualified and sworn in as a special so he could teach it, but since he retired to cyprus 6 or 7 years ago no one has taken his place, so there aren't many DIRFIT qualified bobbies left now. A very popular system in the States and you'll see it on the Cops type TV shows, but very neglected here now, which is a shame after all the effort that was made to get it approved at the turn of the century.
Last edited:
Bazzer
Setting the controls for the heart of the sun.
- Location
- On the edge of reality
@Drago said professional witness not expert witness. There is a difference.
ClichéGuevara
Legendary Member
- Location
- Kingston upon the River Hull
The 1st highlighted bit supports what I said. The second and third highlighted bits shows that not all police fall within that category. I'll save my credentials for another time, but let's just say I'm not talking from ignorance or lack of experience.
OP
OP
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Christ, you could start an argument in an empty room.
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
Yeah, trained, that's how they know 🤔
ClichéGuevara
Legendary Member
- Location
- Kingston upon the River Hull
Not really, just trying to clarify what you said. As someone else pointed out, Police are deemed 'professional witnesses', but that is separate to being an 'expert' witness, which is what would be needed for proof if their 'professional' opinion was challenged. Not many Police meet that standard for key aspects, but that doesn't often get challenged.
I'll leave it at that.
Similar threads
