Are the police useless ?

apreading

Amazing - I had heard that people like you existed but just didnt realise how deliberately distorted somebody can view the world until I saw it with my own eyes here...!

It does prove one thing - that everything they say about the NHS failing to provide adequate mental health services is true.

mamba80

apreading wrote:

Amazing - I had heard that people like you existed but just didnt realise how deliberately distorted somebody can view the world until I saw it with my own eyes here...!

It does prove one thing - that everything they say about the NHS failing to provide adequate mental health services is true.

I ve watched the Borne films, the Police/Intel services can manipulate evidence and situations a lot more than you think.

haydenm

Wake up, sheeple.

fat daddy

people have different opinions to me ... cant cope with it .... engage reptilian brain .. insult them because ethat will enforce my opinion more .. YOU TWATS !!!

haydenm

Some thorough opinion enforcement right there

bompington

mamba80 wrote:

I ve watched the Borne films, the Police/Intel services can manipulate evidence and situations a lot more than you think.

I've watched the Star Treck films, astronauts can travel at a lot more than the speed of light.

FishFish

I've seen the Wizard of Oz and KNOW that there are metallic robots with transgenic hearts. FACT.

napoleond

I saw Working Girl with Sigourney Weavers. Shows that Carly Simon songs CAN work in a soundtrack. FACT.

webboo

apreading wrote:

Amazing - I had heard that people like you existed but just didnt realise how deliberately distorted somebody can view the world until I saw it with my own eyes here...!

It does prove one thing - that everything they say about the NHS failing to provide adequate mental health services is true.

Clearly as Blonds and B1998 posts are clearly evidence of this.

bompington

Webboo wrote:

apreading wrote:

Amazing - I had heard that people like you existed but just didnt realise how deliberately distorted somebody can view the world until I saw it with my own eyes here...!

It does prove one thing - that everything they say about the NHS failing to provide adequate mental health services is true.

Clearly as Blonds and B1998 posts are clearly evidence of this.

What, you mean like multiple personality disorder?

webboo

No a case of multiple delusions, he thinks he's two people and also believes he's a cyclist.

andcp

Steve-XcT wrote:

No they are not setting the targets but that is because the senior positions are political...

Yes they are, always have been always will be. But Mr. Cameron instigated the PCC's so can now vote which flavour of politics you want. You and I have the opportunity to influence that policy.

Steve-XcT wrote:

It is now illegal for a member of the public to record a police officer committing a crime. This therefore means any footage submitted as evidence is also illegal.

Is it? Can you provide a source for this? I'm intrigued.

Steve-XcT wrote:

Likewise for De Menzies... every tube carriage and hundreds on the station all mysteriously "weren't working"...

...and your point is what with regards to the CCTV? what difference would CCTV working made? The Met got it wrong, as evidenced by what has happened since. They f*cked up big time, and have admitted as much. All CCTV would have done was provide evidence of the final moments of Jean Charles de Menezes. Who would want to see that? Not me, and let's face it the images wouldn't be made public anyway.

Steve-XcT wrote:

Because you can't instigate an operation without paperwork. That paperwork has disappeared according to Lord Carlile.

I can't seem to find anything from Lord Carlile on the web - can you provide links, I'm interested.

Steve-XcT wrote:

the case of Tomlinson not only were the City Of London's cameras "turned off that day" but so we are meant to believe were hundreds of others...
The Jury had to make a decision based on the evidence available.
That is the basis of our legal system ... but it is one that relies on the chain of custody for evidence.
If that chain of custody is compromised then so is the whole legal process.

Again, please can you provide evidence that the chain of custody was compromised that day. Hearsay and conjecture are not evidence; refusing to believe the police are not hiding something is not evidence either.

Steve, as I have said earlier, engage with your PCC/police. Join the Specials to get first hand experience, volunteer to perform welfare visits for those in the cells, do something to improve the situation http://content.met.police.uk/Site/volunteering
However, if the reason for this vitriol is based on a poorly executed stop and search that happened about ten years ago, I think it’s time you moved on……

Throbbe

HaydenM wrote:

Wake up, sheeple.

Shhhhhh.

Steve-XcT

Andcp wrote:

Is it? Can you provide a source for this? I'm intrigued.

Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act

Steve-XcT wrote:

Likewise for De Menzies... every tube carriage and hundreds on the station all mysteriously "weren't working"...

...and your point is what with regards to the CCTV? what difference would CCTV working made? The Met got it wrong, as evidenced by what has happened since. They f*cked up big time, and have admitted as much. All CCTV would have done was provide evidence of the final moments of Jean Charles de Menezes. Who would want to see that? Not me, and let's face it the images wouldn't be made public anyway.

The fact it disappeared is very worrying... literally dozens of cameras are mysteriously weren't working, accidentally recorded over it etc.
As you pointed out this means collusion on a big scale... who would see them, the Jury ...

Steve-XcT wrote:

Because you can't instigate an operation without paperwork. That paperwork has disappeared according to Lord Carlile.

I can't seem to find anything from Lord Carlile on the web - can you provide links, I'm interested.

There is a LOT....
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid ... report+s44

Steve-XcT wrote:

the case of Tomlinson not only were the City Of London's cameras "turned off that day" but so we are meant to believe were hundreds of others...
The Jury had to make a decision based on the evidence available.
That is the basis of our legal system ... but it is one that relies on the chain of custody for evidence.
If that chain of custody is compromised then so is the whole legal process.

Again, please can you provide evidence that the chain of custody was compromised that day. Hearsay and conjecture are not evidence; refusing to believe the police are not hiding something is not evidence either.

Which is unhelpful as the evidence is destroyed...not in one single case but across the board.
If you take one in isolation then there is some doubt...if highly improbable that dozens of cameras all stopped working... but this doesn't really stand up ...
If you read through the Carlile reports you will see that evidence is routinely missing and SOCA are not followed but taken alone each one might be true. For example thousands of cases exist where photographers have had evidence (e.g. cards reformatted) destroyed in direct contravention to SOCA.

Steve, as I have said earlier, engage with your PCC/police. Join the Specials to get first hand experience, volunteer to perform welfare visits for those in the cells, do something to improve the situation http://content.met.police.uk/Site/volunteering

I don't see how joining would change the top brass in the slightest.... when a published parliamentary report has little or no effect.

However, if the reason for this vitriol is based on a poorly executed stop and search that happened about ten years ago, I think it’s time you moved on……

It's not a single stop and search, 3 within 3 months ... of which one I was assaulted but the other 2 were not in line with SOCA either. It's the refusal to attend the burglary at my flat until days after the event... phoning the local station to report objects of furniture (a fridge and TV) being thrown out of a 10th story window and being threatened when I asked if they were going to attend before someone was potentially killed.

The most basics are ignored .. being asked WHY you are being searched and asking for this to be recorded on the 5090 BEFORE the search... is just another way to corrupt evidence.

I now have a 7yr old kid... how do you think this would work out of they decide to detain me without any evidence or wrong doing - simply because they can ???

About 5 years ago, the last time I spoke to any officer on duty I went to the shop to buy some tinned tomatoes....
I left a ragu slowly cooking and just popped out for 5 minutes...

I stood in the queue directly in front of a sergeant... practically touching whilst he bought something.
When I left his partner crossed over the road grabbed me and demanded a search...

I asked why and he refused to say.... and I explained he needed to fill out a 5090 with the reason and if this was not S44 related write his name...he was still refusing when his partner (the sergeant) came out...

I explained to the sergeant and then the PC said "I smelled of drugs" .... I asked the sergeant if he agreed and he said it wasn't his place... I pointed out he had been stood centimetres from me inside for several minutes ... yet his partner was stood across the road ... as such it was an out and out lie by the PC

The sergeant refused to do anything either way... I spent a good 30 minutes being searched and questioned... and I had a just pair of jeans and t-shirt on .... and in my possession were a can of tomatoes and change from £1... (that's it) ..

The PC then issued a caution saying I smelled of drugs ... I then had to apply in writing to get it removed so that this one idiot with a power complex can continue??? The fact the sergeant was present and refused to be involved just makes it worse... what exactly was he trying to teach the PC at the expense of someone who pays his salary...

bompington

Steve-XcT wrote:

Andcp wrote:

Is it? Can you provide a source for this? I'm intrigued.

Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act

"It is a defence for a person charged with this offence to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action (for example, a newspaper feature on police brutality or corruption)"
So, in fact, the very thing that you specifically claim is illegal is actually what the act specifically allows. Top marks :roll:

Steve-XcT

bompington wrote:

Steve-XcT wrote:

Andcp wrote:

Is it? Can you provide a source for this? I'm intrigued.

Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act

"It is a defence for a person charged with this offence to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action (for example, a newspaper feature on police brutality or corruption)"
So, in fact, the very thing that you specifically claim is illegal is actually what the act specifically allows. Top marks :roll:

It's a defence.... the very fact we need a defence is the problem.
It's illegal to take the photo... then you can try and defend why.... the person who took the photo has to then defend

In practice that means the police will have the chance to intimidate the person recording the evidence first.

Before this Flickr and YouTube has lots of videos showing the police acting illegally ... in many cases actually telling the person recording to stop filming...

I see the guidance has now been changed ... but that doesn't change how s44 has previously been abused.
http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice

It's not like I keep abreast of this ... the police (at force level) have made their own bed.
Those like me that have suffered abuse and assault are not going to suddenly think that they have fundamentally changed whilst the same brass sit at the top.

Nor does it prevent intimidation or the police actually deleting evidence. Which they never did yet thousands of videos exist of them demanding that very thing and if they do delete it (without a court order) how do you actually prove it?

Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/a ... 47436.html

ballysmate

Further to Bompy's post above



(1)A person commits an offence who—

(a)elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—

(i)a member of Her Majesty's forces,

(ii)a member of any of the intelligence services, or

(iii)a constable,

which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)publishes or communicates any such information.

The bit in bold is pertinent.

Steve-XcT

Ballysmate wrote:

Further to Bompy's post above



(1)A person commits an offence who—

(a)elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—

(i)a member of Her Majesty's forces,

(ii)a member of any of the intelligence services, or

(iii)a constable,

which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)publishes or communicates any such information.

The bit in bold is pertinent.

How do you prove that a photo couldn't be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism ???

also that's unconnected to the offence...

For example taking a photo of a rail station (or any public place) could be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism regardless of if there are any of the above people in the photo ....

How would you know if the photo has any of the above in it???

not to mention if I was some sort of terrorist or criminal "casing a joint" surely I'd use a tiny hidden pin-hole camera ??

ballysmate

Steve-XcT wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Further to Bompy's post above



(1)A person commits an offence who—

(a)elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—

(i)a member of Her Majesty's forces,

(ii)a member of any of the intelligence services, or

(iii)a constable,

which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)publishes or communicates any such information.

The bit in bold is pertinent.

How do you prove that a photo couldn't be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism ???

also that's unconnected to the offence...

For example taking a photo of a rail station (or any public place) could be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism regardless of if there are any of the above people in the photo ....

How would you know if the photo has any of the above in it???

not to mention if I was some sort of terrorist or criminal "casing a joint" surely I'd use a tiny hidden pin-hole camera ??

Now we know you are just trolling.

tangled_metal

It does seem that this Steve bloke is either making his stop and search stories up or is one of those types who look like they're up to no good. I've met a few people who get stopped a lot. I was out with one of b that type once and it became clear. Their behaviour kind of brought them to the police's attention. Then add in an argumentative streak a mile wide and you get what you deserve.

rick_chasey

Tangled Metal wrote:

It does seem that this Steve bloke is either making his stop and search stories up or is one of those types who look like they're up to no good. I've met a few people who get stopped a lot. I was out with one of b that type once and it became clear. Their behaviour kind of brought them to the police's attention. Then add in an argumentative streak a mile wide and you get what you deserve.

I used to go out in Cambridge as a teenager. All middle class guys. One guy was black.

Every time we went out, he got stopped. Without fail. Never the rest of us, only him.

Anyway, he's now GP. Never committed a crime in his life. Never even dabbled in drugs i believe.

Some police abuse their power and they don't give a sh!t.

bendertherobot

Steve-XcT wrote:

The PC then issued a caution saying I smelled of drugs ... I then had to apply in writing to get it removed so that this one idiot with a power complex can continue??? The fact the sergeant was present and refused to be involved just makes it worse... what exactly was he trying to teach the PC at the expense of someone who pays his salary...

Why did you admit the offence? Where was the caution administered?

andcp

You said

Steve-XcT wrote:

It is now illegal for a member of the public to record a police officer committing a crime. This therefore means any footage submitted as evidence is also illegal.

Where does Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act state that it’s illegal for a member of the public to record a police officer committing a crime? Did I miss something? It also does not state that it’s illegal for anyone to record anything in my interpretation, unless it’s for terrorist reasons – and that seems entirely reasonable to me.

Steve-XcT wrote:

The fact it disappeared is very worrying... literally dozens of cameras are mysteriously weren't working, accidentally recorded over it etc.
As you pointed out this means collusion on a big scale... who would see them, the Jury ...

As I said before – so what? And where is the data for this? The Guardian didn’t seem to have many issues finding the footage

Steve-XcT wrote:

There is a LOT....
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid ... report+s44

I’ve done a quick trawl of his (99 page) report from February 2011– couldn’t see any reference to De Menzies, Tomlinson, CCTV or operational paperwork – which page should I be looking at?

Steve-XcT wrote:

the case of Tomlinson not only were the City Of London's cameras "turned off that day" but so we are meant to believe were hundreds of others...
The Jury had to make a decision based on the evidence available.
That is the basis of our legal system ... but it is one that relies on the chain of custody for evidence.
If that chain of custody is compromised then so is the whole legal process.

Again, please can you provide evidence that the chain of custody was compromised that day. Hearsay and conjecture are not evidence; refusing to believe the police are not hiding something is not evidence either.

Steve-XcT wrote:

Which is unhelpful as the evidence is destroyed...not in one single case but across the board.
If you take one in isolation then there is some doubt...if highly improbable that dozens of cameras all stopped working... but this doesn't really stand up ...

Nope, sorry, still can’t find anything that suggests evidence was destroyed. Surely if evidence was destroyed the officer at the centre of the case would not have been charged?

Steve-XcT wrote:

If you read through the Carlile reports you will see that evidence is routinely missing and SOCA are not followed but taken alone each one might be true. For example thousands of cases exist where photographers have had evidence (e.g. cards reformatted) destroyed in direct contravention to SOCA.

No comment

Steve-XcT wrote:

I don't see how joining would change the top brass in the slightest.... when a published parliamentary report has little or no effect.

Because it’s the same with a lot of things in life – you can only change from within. Sitting outside of the system and shouting about stuff does not get things changed. Also, I suspect some of the other posters on this forum would have a lot more respect if you were a current serving officer or could provide us with further insight from a first hand point of view.

Steve-XcT wrote:

It's not a single stop and search, 3 within 3 months ... of which one I was assaulted but the other 2 were not in line with SOCA either. It's the refusal to attend the burglary at my flat until days after the event... phoning the local station to report objects of furniture (a fridge and TV) being thrown out of a 10th story window and being threatened when I asked if they were going to attend before someone was potentially killed.

So engage your PCC; write to your Area Commander or Chief Constable; ultimately write to your MP. Did you do any of that?

Steve-XcT wrote:

I now have a 7yr old kid... how do you think this would work out of they decide to detain me without any evidence or wrong doing - simply because they can ???

I suspect provision would be made in those circumstances.

Steve-XcT wrote:

…….The PC then issued a caution saying I smelled of drugs ... I then had to apply in writing to get it removed so that this one idiot with a power complex can continue??? The fact the sergeant was present and refused to be involved just makes it worse... what exactly was he trying to teach the PC at the expense of someone who pays his salary...

If you perceive you were treated unfairly, as before - engage with your PCC; write to your Area Commander or Chief Constable; ultimately write to your MP. Did you do any of that?

As Rick says

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some police abuse their power and they don't give a sh!t.

Yes some do abuse their powers, and no they don't give a sh!t. We have no way to re-programme individual human beings. You can get used to it, keep ranting on anonymous forums or engage; let me tell you though, unless you engage, nothing will change. The choice is yours.

DeVlaeminck

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It does seem that this Steve bloke is either making his stop and search stories up or is one of those types who look like they're up to no good. I've met a few people who get stopped a lot. I was out with one of b that type once and it became clear. Their behaviour kind of brought them to the police's attention. Then add in an argumentative streak a mile wide and you get what you deserve.

I used to go out in Cambridge as a teenager. All middle class guys. One guy was black.

Every time we went out, he got stopped. Without fail. Never the rest of us, only him.

.

A little bit exaggerated ?

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It does seem that this Steve bloke is either making his stop and search stories up or is one of those types who look like they're up to no good. I've met a few people who get stopped a lot. I was out with one of b that type once and it became clear. Their behaviour kind of brought them to the police's attention. Then add in an argumentative streak a mile wide and you get what you deserve.

I used to go out in Cambridge as a teenager. All middle class guys. One guy was black.

Every time we went out, he got stopped. Without fail. Never the rest of us, only him.

.

A little bit exaggerated ?

No. They'd wait outside the same club/pub. And there were only 3 to go to, and 2 were sh!t.

DeVlaeminck

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It does seem that this Steve bloke is either making his stop and search stories up or is one of those types who look like they're up to no good. I've met a few people who get stopped a lot. I was out with one of b that type once and it became clear. Their behaviour kind of brought them to the police's attention. Then add in an argumentative streak a mile wide and you get what you deserve.

I used to go out in Cambridge as a teenager. All middle class guys. One guy was black.

Every time we went out, he got stopped. Without fail. Never the rest of us, only him.

.

A little bit exaggerated ?

No. They'd wait outside the same club/pub. And there were only 3 to go to, and 2 were sh!t.

Must have been the company he kept.

rick_chasey

We couldn't do much else, so we'd stand around him so fewer people could see.

Suffice to say nothing was ever found.

Steve-XcT

Andcp wrote:

Where does Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act state that it’s illegal for a member of the public to record a police officer committing a crime? Did I miss something? It also does not state that it’s illegal for anyone to record anything in my interpretation, unless it’s for terrorist reasons – and that seems entirely reasonable to me.

You already quoted it ... it is illegal to record or photograph any of the people in your list if that photo or recording could be used by a terrorist.... it doesn't specify that the inclusion or not of the person has to be of any use it specifies the photo or recording... and that means pretty much ANY photo outside your house... a picture of the white cliffs of diver could conceivably be useful or any public building... a football stadium ... etc. etc.

As I said before – so what? And where is the data for this? The Guardian didn’t seem to have many issues finding the footage

The guardian had footage from journalists, TV crews and members of the public... it didn't have footage from TFL or City of London Cameras....

I’ve done a quick trawl of his (99 page) report from February 2011– couldn’t see any reference to De Menzies, Tomlinson, CCTV or operational paperwork – which page should I be looking at?

Previously you couldn't find ANYTHING .. now you want a specific report page number?
You need to read the lot from 2001 for Lord Carlile ... and the other Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation Reports

https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.in ... reviewers/

These are retro-active reviews of the legislation.... published yearly.
As a small part of that they note where the police have abused the acts.

Nope, sorry, still can’t find anything that suggests evidence was destroyed. Surely if evidence was destroyed the officer at the centre of the case would not have been charged?

Surely .... ??? This presumes not all evidence was destroyed.... the point is if enough evidence is destroyed then the officer at the centre of the case isn't charged or not enough can be found....

It seems to me we have come a long way since written orders and paper notebooks ... not just in the police, in general...
Electronic orders getting lost or accidentally over written doesn't seem to be taken in the same way as a missing page ripped from a notebook.

Whereas in the past a notebook with some pagers that had accidentally gone missing was suspicious and need a good explanation it appears electronic documents going missing is hardly even a cause for concern.

Because it’s the same with a lot of things in life – you can only change from within. Sitting outside of the system and shouting about stuff does not get things changed. Also, I suspect some of the other posters on this forum would have a lot more respect if you were a current serving officer or could provide us with further insight from a first hand point of view.

That really makes no sense.... how is a PC going to stand-up and change an organisation that is founded on bullying ??

It makes s much sense as saying the police should join organised crime gangs to try and change from within ....

So engage your PCC; write to your Area Commander or Chief Constable; ultimately write to your MP. Did you do any of that?

To what end ? To become a target ?
Whilst the police control the chain of evidence I would just be stitched up if they had any serious worries...
How hard would it be to simply beat the shit out of me and then place a knife in my hand or stop my car and place some drugs in the car ???
How do I then disprove that evidence ???

Steve-XcT wrote:

I now have a 7yr old kid... how do you think this would work out of they decide to detain me without any evidence or wrong doing - simply because they can ???

I suspect provision would be made in those circumstances.

Would or could but why would I even risk it???

Steve-XcT wrote:

…….The PC then issued a caution saying I smelled of drugs ... I then had to apply in writing to get it removed so that this one idiot with a power complex can continue??? The fact the sergeant was present and refused to be involved just makes it worse... what exactly was he trying to teach the PC at the expense of someone who pays his salary...

If you perceive you were treated unfairly, as before - engage with your PCC; write to your Area Commander or Chief Constable; ultimately write to your MP. Did you do any of that?

I asked my cousin who is a solicitor... he advised just getting the caution revoked and not getting myself into deeper trouble ...

As Rick says

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some police abuse their power and they don't give a sh!t.

Yes they do. We have no way to re-programme individual human beings. You can get used to it, keep ranting on anonymous forums or engage; let me tell you though, unless you engage, nothing will change. The choice is yours.[/quote]


The police have the power to get rid of individual human beings if they can't be encouraged to act reasonably but that can only happen top down.

In the example I was cautioned for "drugs" gave the sergeant should have intervened... if he didn't then his direct supervisor should have etc.
When I was assaulted there were two PC's... one was distinctly uncomfortable but he didn't DO anything.... he possibly moderated his partners behaviour but he didn't actually do what he should have done and arrest his partner for assault.

Tangled wrote:

or is one of those types who look like they're up to no good

Before moving back to the UK I was a professional photographer....
As such I carried a camera about most of the time I wasn't working....
Simply having a DSLR was enough to look like "I was up to no good" .... the incident with the "smelling of drugs" was several years later... I have no idea why me in that case.

Then add in an argumentative streak a mile wide and you get what you deserve.

Asking for the reason they wish to search you and ensuring they follow SOCA is not or shouldn't be an argumentative streak a mile wide...

If they lie to me and I correct them that is not an argumentative streak a mile wide.

The MPS Quality of Service Principles underpin all encounters:
• Introduce yourself
• Find out what people need and provide it
• Explain what is going to happen next
• Give a reference and contact number
• Keep people informed by providing regular updates

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/polic ... ersion.pdf

Find out what people need and provide it - simple I want to know WHY and I want the reason recorded on the 5090

Explain what is going to happen next - That depends on your co-operation fella is not an adequate answer.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It does seem that this Steve bloke is either making his stop and search stories up or is one of those types who look like they're up to no good. I've met a few people who get stopped a lot. I was out with one of b that type once and it became clear. Their behaviour kind of brought them to the police's attention. Then add in an argumentative streak a mile wide and you get what you deserve.

I used to go out in Cambridge as a teenager. All middle class guys. One guy was black.

Every time we went out, he got stopped. Without fail. Never the rest of us, only him.

.

A little bit exaggerated ?

No. They'd wait outside the same club/pub. And there were only 3 to go to, and 2 were sh!t.

Must have been the company he kept.

What do you mean?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It does seem that this Steve bloke is either making his stop and search stories up or is one of those types who look like they're up to no good. I've met a few people who get stopped a lot. I was out with one of b that type once and it became clear. Their behaviour kind of brought them to the police's attention. Then add in an argumentative streak a mile wide and you get what you deserve.

I used to go out in Cambridge as a teenager. All middle class guys. One guy was black.

Every time we went out, he got stopped. Without fail. Never the rest of us, only him.

.

A little bit exaggerated ?

No. They'd wait outside the same club/pub. And there were only 3 to go to, and 2 were sh!t.

Must have been the company he kept.

What do you mean?

He's pulling your leg. Keep up