"MM" wrote in message
news:9rg5u3tq03oqgi0c1l1i4lalv3btj17b66@4ax.com...
>>>I expect too many members of the public readily back down when
>>>confronted like that, something the photographer/filmmaker in question
>>>was not going to do, and that became painfully clear to the two
>>>jobsworths who finally sloped off. And we pay our (council) taxes to
>>>feed these tossers.
>>>
>>
>>One of them was a power crazed nut who thought his word was law and
>>didn't seem at all used to handling people who didn't kow-tow to a
>>uniform and the other seemed so feeble as to be barely able to get out
>>his utterance of his misunderstanding of the law. How do these people
>>even get through the application process, let alone the training?
>
> Look who's employing them!
I find that very few police officers, expecially younger ones, have any
great knowledge of the law other than those few bits they encounter on a
regular basis. Their usual tactic in any uncertain situation is to fall back
on the old tested standbies like breach of the peace. The problem is they
are trained to not back down or ever appear uncertain which combined with
limited knowledge leads to predictable results.
Some years ago I had a very young plod try to tell me that trees on my land
were not my property because someone else had planted them so they were his
trees. The Common Law is quite clear on the point that growing things are
part and parcel of the land they grow on and ownership rests with the owner
of that land.
Refusing to concede he tried to argue that if someone else's car was parked
on my land it wouldn't become my car which of course it wouldn't and which
has sod all to do with trees. It was a waste of time debating it though
because they simply refuse to concede anything whether they really know
about it or not.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
|