More thuggery

Yet more thuggery,


More from this stop

Are these police employees stupid? Thats his career gone. My mate has just got one policeman in court for a similar matter. (last month). The DPS got involved and he has been sacked and appearing in court for perverting the court of justice for not having his video. Also, they are paying £750 my mate's mate (i think thats the amount) for each hour in custody for wrongful arrest. He was in for 24 hours.

So, if you are short of a bob or two.........

Just be aware of one trick. That is if they beat you up and you end up in hospital whether cuffed to the bed whether under police supervision or not, apparently thats not counted as custody, when obviously it is. There  is therefore an "incentive" to beat up which reduces the cost of custody. ie you end up in an hospital bed which doesn't pay.

I would not dis the police as they are safer to the alternative, but even they cannot abide by their employees being thugs, and as soon as they rout this out it will be better for all of us. This behaviour is being promoted by:
1) "other organisations" competing for the police service.
2) Certain training organisms (and we know who they are) are leading police officers to behave like this to bring disrepute into the force, but they are secretly pushing the alternative companies. The police are not aware pf this but we can see it. The training is "misleading" employees into what they believe is acting beyond leadership - now where have we heard that before? These employees are a small casualty (losing their livelihoods) for a darker agenda. POLICE NEED TO READ THIS. Years/decades ago policemen and women would never behave like this.

It reinforces the need to ALWAYS record any interaction with them.

That also applies to any interaction with all government employees .

correct. And we have two iphones with recordings on that have been stamped on by officers but are currently being recovered to get the videos. They were deliberately stamped on by the officers to pervert the course of justice.

Also when they delete your recordings ,from what I understand ,these recordings can be retrieved .

Yes , I have recovered deleted recordings

I was stopped many years ago for no road tax and all the copper said was that he was reporting me to DVLA as it was a civil matter!
Can anyone add to this please?

It has been very clear for sometime. This is the sort or thug they actively recruit .
Clearly they are also trained to intimidate the people in order to exert total compliance.

Technically it is a civil matter and to get around this they have used other legislation Mike, for example, your insurance is invalid if your vehicle is unroadworthy, and this has been extended to include tax and MOT, so if you have neither of these things your vehicle is not insured which is a criminal offence and they can immediately take your vehicle and have it recovered, at your expense of course.

An interesting read. Maybe relevant:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/3597.html

Most certainly relevant.

Midnight,
Not sure if relevant. That case is particular in that, in a nutshell, a "voidable" insurance policy does not constitute an offence under the Road Traffic Act, or EU law.
It also particularised the "voidability" on geographical location not covered by his hire license. Both courts (Mags and QB) found in his favour.

But still driving without insurance creates a road traffic offence, and I contend that it is not an action that has anything to do with driving.

Seems like the Free Video Stream to Cloud site
Bambuser has closed down,
but there are some alternatives.
Stream direct to the cloud and PLOD cant destroy the video.
https://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/10/19/camra-mobile-app-lets-you-shoot-photos-and-videos-directly-to-the-cloud/

very useful

It is relevant as an insurance policy for business and social and domestic use is not regionalised, his taxi licence may be regionalised but this does not invalidate his insurance cover. He is insured wherever he chooses to travel within the UK as he has both business and private use on the cover and it is a corporate policy and not his own policy.

Therefore it would have to be a claim for having the incorrect insurance and this would have to be bought against his employer and not him personally.

I could be wrong but I think it goes even further than that with regards to insurance alone which is one of the primary reasons for having your vehicle seized by the police. You can commit many different criminal offences while driving including drunk driving and driving under the influence and speeding, but you will still be insured to drive in these cases.

He was charged with having NO insurance and this is the key here, he was not charged with having the incorrect insurance as this would have been levied against his boss.

He was his own boss, by virtue of his taxi license. Not an employee.

If there were more men like that fella who was harassed by the UUI / corporate thug then Britain would be a better place...the UUI had to call for 'back up' - just like any bully.

I'd by that man with balls a pint any day!

He was self employed and using a vehicle from his employer who insured the vehicle.

On a side issue here, a Police vehicle check will show several things:

Is the vehicle taxed.
Is the vehicle MOT'd.
Is the vehicle insured.
The registered keepers details.
Even if the registered keeper is a firearms licence holder.

From this information they can go further, for example many websites give a MOT history including why a vehicle failed its last failing MOT and the reasons why, along with any advisory items which are items within the last 5% of their working life.

Why do you think they target specific items with a stopped vehicle? because from this data thy have an idea of where to look; even though this is well out of their remit for vehicle checks as none of them are qualified motor mechanics, yet they still do these things and claim "reasonable suspicion" of a vehicle being unsafe.

If the registered keeper is a firearms holder they will call out the heavy mob and even the helicopter before stopping a vehicle and invariable waste a lot of time and money doing so, then claim they cannot police the streets because of budget cuts, total hypocracy.

They can also get annual mileage data between MOT's and check the insured annual mileage against the vehicle insurance database and cause considerable issues here. Some private and company vehicles are insured for a proportion of business miles and a proportion of personal mileage, how do they differentiate between the two? they don't, they just assume and claim you are doing more miles than your insurance allows and claim you are uninsured.

I have a company BMW and this is insured on a company group policy, it has unlimited annual business miles and a limit of 5000 personal miles per annum, this is because of our company policy which gives every company vehicle a minimum of 5000 miles personal use, it is part of the add on's the company policy gives as a matter of course to attract our custom.
This automatically raises issues and issues they exploit to create contention wherever possible.

You get the picture.

assassin wrote:He was self employed and using a vehicle from his employer who insured the vehicle.

No.
He can't be self employed and have an employer. If you have an employer it means you are an employee and therefore not self employed. The transcript at 9 says he "worked" for premier cars when in Oldham. His self employed work would have entailed invoicing premier cars, So, not an employee.

He hired the vehicle from someone else, who insured it.
See 10. of the transcript.
"The respondent had at the time a hire agreement with a Mr Amar F Hossain in respect of the Toyota with the registration number that I have quoted. It was common ground he was entitled to drive under the terms of Mr Hossain's insurance."

6. "had been licenced by Rossendale Borough Council to ply for hire within that borough but not elsewhere"

He used the car and was worked as stated in 9.
"He confirmed that in Oldham he worked for Premier Cars"

Tip: If you are getting pulled over by the police on a regular basis and you suspect that the police or some other authority have placed a marker on your vehicle then you can get rid of these markers simply by putting your vehicle in someone else name and at a different address. It will take about 30 or so day's for the markers to be removed so leave it for say 2 or 3 months and then put it back into your name and address. Some times this system of removing these markers fails. If you find that after doing this that you are still getting pulled over then just repeat it until you are no longer getting stopped by the police. They don't like it up em.

No.
He can't be self employed and have an employer. If you have an employer it means you are an employee and therefore not self employed. The transcript at 9 says he "worked" for premier cars when in Oldham. His self employed work would have entailed invoicing premier cars, So, not an employee.

Of course you can be self employed and an employee, most contractors are self employed and work for various main contractors who are their employers for the periods they work for them. When the contract or their employment with the main contractor ends then they cease to be an employee and move on to a new employer.

You have clearly missed the point here, he was charged with having NO insurance and the insured vehicle was in someone elses name and not his; he was not charged with having the INCORRECT insurance for the purposes he was using it for. Therefore the po-lice have bu**ered it up and bought incorrect charges.

If Mr Hussain rented, leased, or even lent the car to him with an insurance package then it is the responsibility of Mr Hussain to have provided the correct insurance, whichever company engaged his services at the time should have checked the insurance and ensured it was correct, basic due diligence. In any event it is a moot point as even if he has the incorrect insurance, he still had insurance.

midnight wrote:Tip: If you are getting pulled over by the police on a regular basis and you suspect that the police or some other authority have placed a marker on your vehicle then you can get rid of these markers simply by putting your vehicle in someone else name and at a different address. It will take about 30 or so day's for the markers to be removed so leave it for say 2 or 3 months and then put it back into your name and address. Some times this system of removing these markers fails. If you find that after doing this that you are still getting pulled over then just repeat it until you are no longer getting stopped by the police. They don't like it up em.

My next vehicle is being registered in the dogs name.