Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
seeder

Pedestrian arrested - for drink driving

17 posts in this topic

Ok this is a bit odd, a guy at a fracking protests is pushed over, then arrested for drink driving, you really need to read the story which leads to the video. He has a few other clips of protests

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/03/police-psychopath-caught-on-camera-framing-innocent-fracking-protester-for-dui/

[media=]

[/media]

From under the vid

Published on Jan 31, 2014

Lawful Observer is assaulted by 9986 and then his colleage lies in order to carry out unlawful arrest of Lawful observer whilst filming police assaults at protest against Fracking on Barton Moss Road, Irlam, Salford on 14/1/14. After the camera was turned off, 08076 David Kehoe breaks camera strap in order to seize camera from lawful observer. Because of advanced storage technology, the video data was stored by the device to be recovered when the camera was eventually returned on 31st January 2014. Uniformed hired thug for IGAS David Kehoe blatantly lies about what is said, even though there is a camera pointed at him recording his lies.

Transcript of court case 28/1/14:

Usher - "can you stand at the end"

Freeman - "I claim common law jurisdiction, I do not consent and I wave the

benefits"

Magistrate - "Can you repeat that"

Freeman - "I claim common law jurisdiction, I do not consent and I wave the

benefits"

Magistrate (to other two magistrates) - "I don't think we have had that before"

Clerk - "Are you Steven Spy?"

Freeman - "I am Steven of the family Spy"

Clerk - " Are you Steven Spy?"

Freeman - "I am Steven of the family Spy"

Clerk - "Where do you live?"

Freeman - "I live on the land"

Clerk - "Can you confirm your date of birth"

Freeman - "I believe that would be hearsay evidence, your honour"

Clerk - "If you honour is satisfied we have identified the defendant, we can

continue".

Prosecution - "The prosecution is not satisfied that there is sufficient

evidence to substantiate the charge, therefore we withdraw the case"

Clerk - " Do you understand that the prosecution is withdrawing its case"

Freeman - "No I do not understand, but I do comprehend"

Magistrate - "Whether you understand or comprehend, the prosecution is

withdrawing its case, so the case is dismissed and you are free to go"

Freeman - "Thank you, your honour".

eta source!

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

stupid hippie

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the incredibly biased reporting, the officers did everything right, although I think he may have misheard tea as two the first time. If an officer suspects someone is drunk and has been seen driving, I'd rather they got them off the road than have them drive into me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the unwashed are looking for trouble with the police, its clear in that video they want confrontation. the police tell them to move, anyone else would go okay, and move but they dont, they linger, and need telling time and time again, then when the police approach they start saying your assaulting me. you have to give the officer credit he knew what type of car the person was driving, even knowing where it was parked. i think it backfired on the lad with the camera. all he had to do was provide a specimen of breath and if he passed he'd be on his way. but no, he fought the law and the law won.

This fracking - its about time the police were allowed to remove these tax dodgers, bring in the hoses and hose them down. a check should be made on all those at the 'camp' to see whose claiming unemployment benefits, because their being at the camp is not complying with the rules on claiming such benefit. namely actively seeking work, and prepared for work. camped in a tent at the side of the road, looking like swampy. stinking to high heaven is not helping their employment possibilities. there is more than one way to skin a cat.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the unwashed are looking for trouble with the police, its clear in that video they want confrontation. the police tell them to move, anyone else would go okay, and move but they dont, they linger, and need telling time and time again, then when the police approach they start saying your assaulting me.

That and the fact that he was apparently pushed over by the officer waving a hand. Dangerous stuff that hand waving...

I don't agree with fracking myself but if the police ask you to move, just damn well do it. Not that hard.

Edited by Setton
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That and the fact that he was apparently pushed over by the officer waving a hand. Dangerous stuff that hand waving...

I don't agree with fracking myself but if the police ask you to move, just damn well do it. Not that hard.

i was skeptical about fracking but having looked into the process i find myself agreeing with the need for fracking, the benefits outweigh the negatives. its done wonders in the US, so much so the US is damn close in being self sufficient. i look at Australia who seem to be doing quiet well out of it. without all the horror stories. it seems the internet has created a lot of misinformation for which people against fracking use as evidence. sometime you just have to trust the experts and government. i cannot see the government allowing fracking to go ahead if the evidence against it was so strong. as to cause earthquakes, contamination of the water table/supplies etc.. its seems all the western nations are exploring fracking. its a case of getting on the bus or simply miss it.

edit to add, The UK only needs to extract 10% of its potential fracking estimates which would see us 80% sufficient for the next 30 years. deals with the USA and Canada will see us importing gas from these countries in the future. stopping our reliance on middle eastern and Russian gas, securing our energy future. by this time imagine how more advanced renewable technology will have become. i think its necessary. unless we want to fight more wars in the middle east.

Edited by stevewinn
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was skeptical about fracking but having looked into the process i find myself agreeing with the need for fracking, the benefits outweigh the negatives. its done wonders in the US, so much so the US is damn close in being self sufficient. i look at Australia who seem to be doing quiet well out of it. without all the horror stories. it seems the internet has created a lot of misinformation for which people against fracking use as evidence. sometime you just have to trust the experts and government. i cannot see the government allowing fracking to go ahead if the evidence against it was so strong. as to cause earthquakes, contamination of the water table/supplies etc.. its seems all the western nations are exploring fracking. its a case of getting on the bus or simply miss it.

Call me a cynic but I'd say it's more the profits outweighing the negatives. Yes, it's been successful in the US and Australia but the geology there is very different and those countries are much more sparsely populated. But this is getting off topic :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't normally side against the police but two points had me concerned.

- I officer claimed the guy said he had two drinks. The guy clearly stated he had tea and repeatedly advised he had tea. There is no question that is what the guy said or that the officer understood it the first time - yet he made the claim the guy admitted to drinking to a colleague to progress the issue.

- Another officer claimed he had been seen driving - I don't see where that claim that he had been seen driving was made. I head the first officer say he "believed" he had arrived in the car that morning but not that he had seen him driving.

Just saying.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That and the fact that he was apparently pushed over by the officer waving a hand. Dangerous stuff that hand waving...

Bloke's probably a treegan so the breeze created by that hand wave knocked him for a six, not know for their protean muscle mass are treegans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was skeptical about fracking but having looked into the process i find myself agreeing with the need for fracking, the benefits outweigh the negatives. its done wonders in the US, so much so the US is damn close in being self sufficient.

And being able to light your water on fire is an acceptable price to pay for oil self sufficiency? Not that it's really what I would call self sufficient as these corporations ruining the land are also gouging you for your money so they make record profits year after year.

In my opinion ruining the ground water tables to extract oil and probably making this land unusable in the future is poor planning at best and criminal at worst. And because this man is standing up for his beliefs and principals he is now an unemployed lay about by your judgement. God help the future people that have to live on the earth you're in favor of creating.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And being able to light your water on fire is an acceptable price to pay for oil self sufficiency? Not that it's really what I would call self sufficient as these corporations ruining the land are also gouging you for your money so they make record profits year after year.

In my opinion ruining the ground water tables to extract oil and probably making this land unusable in the future is poor planning at best and criminal at worst. And because this man is standing up for his beliefs and principals he is now an unemployed lay about by your judgement. God help the future people that have to live on the earth you're in favor of creating.

That Video how true is it? i mean, how does that apply to the United Kingdom, how does fracking contaminate drinking water supply for instance, how does it enter the water treatment plants, because as you will know the vast majority of water in the UK comes from reservoirs which is then pumped via enclosed pipes to treatment plants were the water is treated and continually monitored before being piped yet again enclosed in sealed pipes around the system into our homes. rest assured you will not witness any thing like what is contained in that video.

its about time people stopped believing rubbish because it appears on the internet or youtube clips. here in the UK exploration of onshore fracking dates back to the 1960's the only reason it wasn't followed through on an industrial scale was because it wasn't cost effective, and was cheaper to drill, extract from offshore North Sea. now we have reached a period in time were national resources are dwindling see North Sea resources and with energy costs rising, as each year passes we are importing more and more gas which is less secure, and influenced by market forces beyond our control, all amount to putting our economy, services and manufacturing and global competitiveness at risk.

according to the British government 2.3 million fracking sites around the world are currently in operation. why are we not seeing disaster after disaster on the news? instead we see the USA economy growing helped by fracking which is reducing energy costs. do not underestimate the impact - it will see the USA alone go from leading importer to a NET exporter in as little as five years. this has consequences such as the US will be less active in the middle east, no longer reliant on middle eastern gas/oil. leaving those who are reliant to their own devices. yet again making supply less secure, you cannot run a 21st century economy on insecure energy supply. l

the negatives are no more than the current gas/oil operations. shale gas will generate jobs, growth, investment and energy security for the foreseeable future.

Edited by stevewinn
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this chap is now to sue the Police... its in the main news today

"The father-of-four, who has a doctorate in metaphysical sciences, accused Greater Manchester Police officers of lying before holding him on 'a ridiculous, trumped-up charge'. He was later charged with failing to provide a specimen and hauled before the courts. However, the case collapsed when prosecutors offered no evidence.

Dr Peers is now planning to sue police for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and assault following the incident.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2553705/Father-wrongly-arrested-police-anti-fracking-protest-trumped-drink-drive-claims-drunk-cup-tea-car-not-sight.html#ixzz2sePQYmK1

Thats should earn him a few quid then, specially with our compensation culture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this chap is now to sue the Police... its in the main news today

"The father-of-four, who has a doctorate in metaphysical sciences, accused Greater Manchester Police officers of lying before holding him on 'a ridiculous, trumped-up charge'. He was later charged with failing to provide a specimen and hauled before the courts. However, the case collapsed when prosecutors offered no evidence.

Dr Peers is now planning to sue police for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and assault following the incident.

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2sePQYmK1

Thats should earn him a few quid then, specially with our compensation culture

he may plan to sue the police, but he wont win. the moment he refused to provide a specimen of breath he committed an offence. i hope he ends up with a large legal bill and court costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he may plan to sue the police, but he wont win. the moment he refused to provide a specimen of breath he committed an offence. i hope he ends up with a large legal bill and court costs.

That's interesting - over here we aren't charged, even if we are obviously drunk and refuse the test. They would still arrest, of course, but the penalty for refusing a sobriety check is suspension of your driver license for 1 year. Trust me, that is a MAJOR problem in most places in the US. The effect of refusal though is that no evidence can be presented.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he may plan to sue the police, but he wont win. the moment he refused to provide a specimen of breath he committed an offence. i hope he ends up with a large legal bill and court costs.

Outside any fracking/hippie/demonstration discussions, it is a must that it will be investigated if the officer was

guilty for perversion of justice.

If guilty, he must be punished by disciplinary measures/decruited as arbitrariness performed during on duty does

not match the defined general criteria of the executive forces of a democratic/constitutional monarchic governed country.

Edited by toast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just recently a cop over here was using bullying tactics on another peaceful protestor...the protestor pointed at the cop and said "I'm going to make a complaint about you...what's your number?" He was then arrested under Section 5 for threatening behaviour...ie pointing his finger at the cop. Lucky he didn't swear at him,he'd have got the death penalty. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just recently a cop over here was using bullying tactics on another peaceful protestor...the protestor pointed at the cop and said "I'm going to make a complaint about you...what's your number?" He was then arrested under Section 5 for threatening behaviour...ie pointing his finger at the cop. Lucky he didn't swear at him,he'd have got the death penalty. :rolleyes:

how threatening was the protesters behaviour, pointing of the finger doesn't seem reason enough, but then again if its right in your face, it changes from a simple pointing to a threatening manner. if it was the latter its no wonder the police officer made an arrest under section 5. if he'd have swore then that can also come under section 5.

its funny how these protesters always seem to have run ins' with the police. yet myself i have totally different experiences with the police with working funny hours it can see me driving home in the early hours of the morning. in one week alone i was pulled over three times by the police. i have to pass through a area known for being dodgy - high crime rate etc... twice they asked me to step out of the car, and asked for my details guess what, i do as they ask and dont play funny buggers, with pleasantries exchanged it sees me on my way within minutes without complaint, see i use my nous and know exactly why they stop me. i could take on the demeanor of these protesters, by calling them officer every two seconds and refusing to comply, trying to be a clever dick. its a shame there isnt a law for being stupid, but then again the cells would be full.

Edited by stevewinn
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.