you should have told him to respect my authorita!!! 
what a dick. hope you’ll bother to get to the bottom of it.
Wow what an ordeal 
I really hope your complaint is taken seriously and he’s stripped of his badge.
His behaviour was psychopathic and is definitely not welcome in a person who is expected to protect us.
I remember what a copper once told me; in the force they call traffic police “black rats” because they eat their own.
First of all the twat that stopped you cannot do you for reckless driving. That offence was replaced in 1988 by dangerous driving, but for both dangerous and careless driving, it has to be proved that your standard of riding fell well beow the standard expected of a reasonably safe and competent rider or driver.Spoke to my friend and said nearly the same lines as TC said.Based on what you have said, he would have insufficient evidence to secure a conviction, unless of course there is more to the story than maybe you are letting on (and I am not suggesting anything dishonest on your part I promise).
The copper can sieze the keys if…
1. He believed you were likely to abscond and do a runner, but he would have t have reasonable suspicion
2. The vehicle was stolen or uninsured and it was being seized prior to being put on the back of of a recovery vehicle
3. The vehicle was detained for the purpose of detecting further evidence, for example to conduct a search for drugs or other illegal substances or stolen property.
4, Suspicion of drink/drug driving in order to prevent the potential offender from driving further.
5. For the purpose of carrying out a full vehicle examination of road worthiness
In most of these situations he would have to tell you why he required you to hand over the keys.
In your case he had no reasonable cause to demand that you hand over the keys and I would therefore suggest that his actions were unreasonable and unlawfull.
As far as his behaviour is concerned, as already mentioned, he should be the subject of a formal complaint. There is no need for behaviour like that, given that ultimately if your riding had been that bad, he always has the option of putting you before the courts.
As for arresting you/ Provided you acted reasonably, any arrest would have resulted in him being made to look very foolish, but make sure that this is all included in the complaint to the IPCC.
Hope that helps
T.C
When he read your post he said that he probably was asking for your keys as there was two of you,
well that’s what the officer would say in court but he told me if that was the case did the officer radio in your friends number plate when he pulled you over.
And he was shocked at the what happened. Friend said you will go court first for your fine then the case get looked into.
Best of luck with it and keep us updated.
Don’t bother with the IPCC they’ll just refer you to the MPS anyway, in their book this is minor.
Simply write to the MPS stating the facts, ultimately it is your word against his… But the witness could help if they can speak to his aggressive and oppressive behaviour, even if witnessed from a distance.
Regardless of any wrong doing there is no excuse for incivilitity and his approach suggests a lack of control. As he was on his own asking for the keys wasn’t entirely unreasonable, but he would need to consider his options if you declined. A use of force would be hard to justify.
I can’t see how he can reasonably expect to do you for speed in the circumstances stated. Careless would probably be a better bet, as its open to interpretation.
Careless would probably be a better bet, as its open to interpretationHe still has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the standard of riding/driving fell below that expected of a reasonably safe and competent driver. Based on the comments by the OP the copper does not have that evidence. Yes it is subjective, but there has to be substantial evidence that can qualifiy the reporting for the offence in the first place.
I take it you are job or legally qualified?
He still has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the standard of riding/driving fell below that expected of a reasonably safe and competent driver. Based on the comments by the OP the copper does not have that evidence. T.C
In my experience this is the bit where people (in the case its a copper) lie!
A traffic cop told me he only needed 2/10’s and repeated the same in the magistrates court and the court took him at his word. Unfortunately for him he decided that he’d over-egg the pudding and lie in his statement saying that he’d recorded my speed over 4/10’s and reaffirmed this by stating this was from junction A to junction B. He also took a photo of me with the bike (reg plate). I say unfortunately because using his own photo I could prove that he’d stopped me before junction B. I had a chartered surveyor come and measure the road up to some distinctive road furniture that in his photo I had not yet reached (this was also before junction B). The road furniture was only 3.6 tenths (I hadnt reached it) and if, as he said, after recording my speed over 4/10’s he’d Blues & Twos’d me I’d have come to a stop 6-8 tenths from junction A.
The similarity in these 2 cases is that the copper started chatting sh1t, we both caught them out, they didn’t like being put right by a Civi and they then phucked it up - basic human behaviour. In my case he told me my bike would not pass an M.oT as the zorst was too loud, it had no mirrors and no indicators (both M.o.T failure). I respectfully suggested on every one of his observations that his conclusions were misinformed and that I would do myself no favours arguing at midnight at the side of the road with a Police Officer so to do as he saw fit and it would all come out in the wash over the next few days.
1 hour and 1 PG9 (prohibits road use by removing the M.o.T) between the 2 of them they’d thrown the proverbial book at me - 9 issues at the side of the road, this was reduced to 7 after 20-30mins of phone calls (by them). The CPS chipped it down to 5, Speeding, unroadworthy condition of my vehicle (not me), no speedometer (not an M.oT requirement but required under the Road Traffic Act for the road if the vehicle can exceed 20mph…down hill with a tail wind it does!), failure to display the tax disc and a number plate issue. The last 3 I pleaded guilty to, the first 2 were successfully defended by a amateur Barrister who had a fool for a client.
Get your mate who you were riding with and your witness and FIGHT, FIGHT,FIGHT!
My point is that one speaks to ‘manner of driving’ and the other is an absolute namely excess speed. It would be fair to assume in both cases that the officer intends to be truthful.
Driving without due care and attention
The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is objective. It applies both when the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when it occurs as a result of incompetence, inadvertence or inexperience.
“Beyond all reasonable doubt” doesn’t amount to a hill of beans… It’s down to who the Magistrate believes when all is said and done. In the absence of audio/visual evidence or a corroborating witness, the party most likely to be believed is the police officer.
Careless or Driving without due care and attention Is now dealt with by way of fixed penalty. I recall that the OP refused to sign something, potentially that is why he is apparently being summonsed.
As you seem to like to teach me to suck eggs, I go back to my original question. Are you Job or legally qualified?My point is that one speaks to ‘manner of driving’ and the other is an absolute namely excess speed. It would be fair to assume in both cases that the officer intends to be truthful.
Driving without due care and attention
The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is objective. It applies both when the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when it occurs as a result of incompetence, inadvertence or inexperience.
“Beyond all reasonable doubt” doesn’t amount to a hill of beans… It’s down to who the Magistrate believes when all is said and done. In the absence of audio/visual evidence or a corroborating witness, the party most likely to be believed is the police officer.
Careless or Driving without due care and attention Is now dealt with by way of fixed penalty. I recall that the OP refused to sign something, potentially that is why he is apparently being summonsed.
jonnyp42
If I thought it was any of your business I’d answer. I’m not teaching anyone to do anything… The OP asked for comment and I provided some. You seem to have a bad attitude.
So by asking you a simple question I have a bad attitude?[quote]
jonnyp42
If I thought it was any of your business I’d answer. I’m not teaching anyone to do anything… The OP asked for comment and I provided some. You seem to have a bad attitude.
I asked you because I am genuinely interested, and if you are suitably qualified or experienced or better qualified than me, I will be more than happy to refer all legal questions I get asked over to you. It is not about me or attitudes, it is abot giving members advice based on knowledge and experience.
You made a statement of fact which is why I asked the question. If you are suitably qualified, the I will be genuinely delighted and I am sure members here will be more than happy to utilise your skills and knowledge.
And for the benefit of everyone else, it is not my intention to turn this into a bun fight and detract from the original post, but if this person is genuinly qualified, then I really am delighted and I will be happy and will keep my mouth shut on anything legal related.
Beyond all reasonable doubt amounts to nothing!
Have you ever given evidence at court?
And the officer is more likely to be believed, guess you have never been to Bromley mags.
Yes on both counts. On the first count, Magistrates, Crown court, County Court and the Royal Courts of Justice (High Coyur) more times than I care to remember over the past 35+ yearsHave you ever given evidence at court? guess you have never been to Bromley mags.
Rusty99
Bromley Magistrates on about 4 occasions, most recently about 6 weeks ago.
Sorry, I know you have I meant p45 or whoever.Yes on both counts. On the first count, Magistrates, Crown court, County Court and the Royal Courts of Justice (High Coyur) more times than I care to remember over the past 35+ yearsHave you ever given evidence at court? guess you have never been to Bromley mags.
Rusty99Bromley Magistrates on about 4 occasions, most recently about 6 weeks ago.
T.C
If I was a gambling man I’d wager that wasn’t given too much thought.