Shaun "where's my ride" Cassidy

[Burnaby49]

Shouldn't one of them accused the other of being a troll/shill/paid agent or something?

I'm disappointed that nobody's been compared to Hitler yet.

You're acting exactly like Hitler. Happy now?

[mufc1959]

You're acting exactly like Hitler. Happy now?

Ja!

[grixit]

Actually, i think you're acting like that arch-fiend and Lord of the Abyss, the mere mention of whose name can bring hours of torment to the speaker, the One, therefor, whose name the sovruns never dare to utter. I refer of courxse, to Bones.

[Joinder]

Apologies if this has been aired in relation to drink driving already.
There was a video of Steve Spy being arrested at Barton Moss fracking demo.
He is nowhere near his car, but the cop smells alcohol on his breath. He then "assumes" that Steve has been drink driving . Steve says he drove down the night before, refused a breath test and is arrested.
The spyman is a clown, but in this case he was clearly wronged( I think), I'm not sure what the outcome was, or where the video is, but its on YouTube somewhere.

[Skeleton]

Apologies if this has been aired in relation to drink driving already.
There was a video of Steve Spy being arrested at Barton Moss fracking demo.
He is nowhere near his car, but the cop smells alcohol on his breath. He then "assumes" that Steve has been drink driving . Steve says he drove down the night before, refused a breath test and is arrested.
The spyman is a clown, but in this case he was clearly wronged( I think), I'm not sure what the outcome was, or where the video is, but its on YouTube somewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gxI4ToNKGQ

This video?

Yes he is nowhere near his car, but the Police knew exactly who the Blue Mercedes belonged to and the Policeman tells him quite clearly the car had been moved from the previous night.

He was not clearly wronged, Steve Spy is a worthless weasel who thinks its ok to stick your face into that of a "Cunstable" and not expect any pay back.

[PeanutGallery]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gxI4ToNKGQ

This video?

Yes he is nowhere near his car, but the Police knew exactly who the Blue Mercedes belonged to and the Policeman tells him quite clearly the car had been moved from the previous night.

He was not clearly wronged, Steve Spy is a worthless weasel who thinks its ok to stick your face into that of a "Cunstable" and not expect any pay back.

Steve Spy may be a complete tosser, but to a certain extent he was set up and I think the police conduct was poor. Simply put we shouldn't have officers going out of their way to engineer an arrest. Notably however Steve was not arrested for drink driving, he was arrested for refusing the breath test, the fact that it seemed he was not driving or attempting to drive or even in charge of a vehicle isn't considered to be a reasonable excuse for refusing the test.

The trouble is however that the officer involved is clearly looking to get Steve for some 'afters' that is bad policing. The police must be impartial and fair when dealing with everybody. If Steve had genuinely done something wrong that should have required his removal, then they would have had the right to arrest and remove him. They can't however abuse a law to engineer a situation wherein someone is removed, on a charge that would actually be very serious and could have severe repercussions for them should they be convicted simply because they do not like them. That is where the police cross the line and become officious and an impediment to the rule of law.

People have the right to be tossers and to be thought of as tossers but we should remember that even tossers have rights as I am sure that all of us have at some point been thought a tosser by someone else.

[eric]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gxI4ToNKGQ

This video?

Yes he is nowhere near his car, but the Police knew exactly who the Blue Mercedes belonged to and the Policeman tells him quite clearly the car had been moved from the previous night.
He was not clearly wronged, Steve Spy is a worthless weasel who thinks its ok to stick your face into that of a "Cunstable" and not expect any pay back.

Steve Spy may be a complete tosser, but to a certain extent he was set up and I think the police conduct was poor. Simply put we shouldn't have officers going out of their way to engineer an arrest. Notably however Steve was not arrested for drink driving, he was arrested for refusing the breath test, the fact that it seemed he was not driving or attempting to drive or even in charge of a vehicle isn't considered to be a reasonable excuse for refusing the test.

I'm inclined to agree with you that he was wronged, although Steve's belligerant attitude certainly didn't help his situation. In Canada, the exact wording of the law uses the words "care and control of a motor vehicle". It's a charge that is sometimes abused by the police, but with the right attitude and a few glib lies can often easily get you out of a drink driving charge.

[YiamCross]

The trouble is however that the officer involved is clearly looking to get Steve for some 'afters' that is bad policing. The police must be impartial and fair when dealing with everybody. If Steve had genuinely done something wrong that should have required his removal, then they would have had the right to arrest and remove him. They can't however abuse a law to engineer a situation wherein someone is removed, on a charge that would actually be very serious and could have severe repercussions for them should they be convicted simply because they do not like them. That is where the police cross the line and become officious and an impediment to the rule of law.

People have the right to be tossers and to be thought of as tossers but we should remember that even tossers have rights as I am sure that all of us have at some point been thought a tosser by someone else.

The copper clearly said he could have arrested the idiot but preferred to move him to the right side of the cordon the police had set up. He then smelled drink on idiot's breath and that gave him reasonable cause to suspect an offence had been committed. Same as if you get pulled for a faulty light or some minor transgression which they intend to warn you for, the police are not barred from arresting you if subsequently they find good reason to suspect another offence has been committed.

All the idiot had to do was prove he hadn't been drinking by taking the test. There appears to be ample evidence that the vehicle had been moved and it's reasonable to assume it had been driven by it's owner who is now refusing a breath test.

The police have to take action in that situation and then it's up to the courts to decide on the evidence whether the accusation is valid. If they'd taken him around the back and given him a good hiding then I'd agree, that would not have been right. The idiot knew he was going to be coming into close contact with the police so one might have thought he'd avoid drinking alltogether but then I guess that's what makes him an idiot. The inability to think things through.

[eric]

All the idiot had to do was prove he hadn't been drinking by taking the test. There appears to be ample evidence that the vehicle had been moved and it's reasonable to assume it had been driven by it's owner who is now refusing a breath test.
The police have to take action in that situation and then it's up to the courts to decide on the evidence whether the accusation is valid. If they'd taken him around the back and given him a good hiding then I'd agree, that would not have been right. The idiot knew he was going to be coming into close contact with the police so one might have thought he'd avoid drinking alltogether but then I guess that's what makes him an idiot. The inability to think things through.

Most FMOTL, because of their confrontational attitude, seem unable to think on their feet, and determine an appropriate response to get themselves out of a bad situation, or at lessen the severity of potential charges. All he had to do was:
1. submit to the test;
2. then lie through his teeth and say he had his drinks after he had parked the vehicle;
3. find any bystander who will agree with him that they had pre-arranged to drive for him.
Certain of my hard drinking acquaintances of mine used to prepare for just such an eventuality by keeping an empty liquor bottle in their vehicle in case they were stopped when the bars were closed. Intoxicated in Public or Open Container charges are simple fines that are much less severe than drink driving.

[Joinder]

He was charged with failing to provide a specimen.
The case collapsed when the prosecution failed to provide any evidence. Steve was planning to sue, but I I'm not sure what happened.
I don't know how to link but it was from a Daily Mail report, which also says the father of four has a "doctorate in metaphysical sciences"

[ArthurWankspittle]

I don't know how to link but it was from a Daily Mail report, which also says the father of four has a "doctorate in metaphysical sciences"

They're about $5 more than the ones that make you a member of a religious order in a US state. Ask the Americans on here.

[NG3]

They're about $5 more than the ones that make you a member of a religious order in a US state.

I've had about a dozen ordinations (for research purposes), and a similar number of university qualifications (for similar reasons).

If I used all my pre-nominal's and post-nominal's my name on an envelope would need more letters than the famous Welsh village Llanfair­pwllgwyngyll­gogery­chwyrn­drobwll­llan­tysilio­gogo­goch.

However, seeing as 90% of them are not worth the paper they're written on, I don't bother.

[PeanutGallery]

All the idiot had to do was prove he hadn't been drinking by taking the test. There appears to be ample evidence that the vehicle had been moved and it's reasonable to assume it had been driven by it's owner who is now refusing a breath test.

What evidence? The evidence that a vehicle had been moved was only the word of a police officer, the same police officer who said he smelled alcohol on Steve Spy's breath. The same officer who clearly mistakes Steve saying he drank tea for his having had two drinks. An officer who then passes Steve over to two other junior officers to deal with.

We don't see the car nor is their any debate or controversy regarding any claim that it wasn't parked in the same location. We don't know if it has or hasn't moved.

The officer doesn't in the video make any allegation that the vehicle had moved overnight, his claim is that Steve "arrived here drunk in his car this morning". However subsequent to that claim the officer in charge claims that Steve "has been quite vociferous this morning".

The reasons why I object to the arrest are:

1) Steve Spy is not in a vehicle or in charge of a vehicle. He does not seem to have been involved in any activities relating to operating a vehicle for some period of time.
2) The officer making the investigation cannot reasonably believe that even if he smelt alcohol on his breath that the only conclusion is that Steve must have driven while drunk. If so, then the police could easily raid a pub and detain anyone who's car was parked in the car park for a specimen of breath. Their was clearly a period of time between whenever Steve Spy had arrived and his interaction with the officer, during which he could have consumed alcohol and as such the officer's suspicion cannot be said to be reasonable.
3) The officers claim that Steve was seen to have been driving, however at that time he was not pulled over or stopped for drink driving, his manner of driving was therefore not such that it gave the police cause for concern, however at some point subsequent to his having driven, when during the interval he might have consumed alcohol - which would have been perfectly legal because he was not driving.
4) I don't see anything in Steve's manner or his speech that makes me think he is impaired, he isn't slurring any of his words, he seems clear and frankly comes across as being sober.

I can only base my opinion on what is in the video, does the officer 'smell alcohol' or not? I don't know but that alone in those circumstances does not give rise to any suspicion that Steve would have driven drunk, it certainly doesn't establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt, their is a condition of the body called Ketosis which can lead to peoples breath smelling like they have consumed alcohol when they have not, also some people can produce alcohol in their intestinal tract so just because a person breath smells like they've had a drink, it doesn't automatically mean they have drunk.

However even if he took and failed the test, that would not show beyond a reasonable doubt, that Steve had driven drunk. It would only show that at some point before the test he had consumed alcohol, the police would need to prove that he would have had no opportunity to consume alcohol between his driving and their detention, which based on the video and the lack of a car, they simply cannot do.

Was Steve drunk, we don't know. I presume he would have been forced to give a second sample at the station as part of the arrest procedure for suspected drink drivers. But that isn't directly relevant.

Is Steve a tosser? Probably yes. Was the officer? I'd also say yes. But the officer is more dangerous, because his being a dick to people can seriously damage their lives. Steve being a dick just gives us something to laugh at.

[YiamCross]

What evidence? ...

Was Steve drunk, we don't know. I presume he would have been forced to give a second sample at the station as part of the arrest procedure for suspected drink drivers. But that isn't directly relevant.

Is Steve a tosser? Probably yes. Was the officer? I'd also say yes. But the officer is more dangerous, because his being a dick to people can seriously damage their lives. Steve being a dick just gives us something to laugh at.

Can't say as you're wildly wrong. It just seems odd to me that the copper said he could arrest Spy but wasn't going to and then changed his mind when he claimed to have smelled alcohol on his breath. I can't see any reason for that other than he smelled alcohol on his breath. To my mind it was not unreasonabe to wonder if the bloke had driven there drunk, no evidence thta he'd been drinking while he was there either.

Personally as a road user I'd rather the copper erred on the side of caution because drunk drivers really do seriously damage lives, theirs and other people's. As we later learn , the copper being a dick has caused a minor inconvenience to Spy as the evidence was clearly lacking and so they dropped the charges. Seems like the way it's supposed to work to me.

[FatGambit]

If this is the video I think it is then I always got the impression there was previous history between the two of them which probably contributed to the coppers actions, unfortunately his actions only go to reinforce the FMOTlL core beliefs about the Police and Society.

[grixit]

agreed with the above. rights are for everyone, especially those whose rights we are inclined to care less about. if we insist on their rights it helps protect ours.

[Skeleton]

Having re-watched it I now agree with Peanuts analysis, and I think they probably did know each other.

He may be a cock, but that is not enough to arrest him.

[Skeleton]

Back on Topic, Shaun has removed a lot of video's from his YT channel. Most disappointingly "Take your hands off my private conveyence" is no more.

Pity i rather enjoyed that one.

[Joinder]

Back on Topic, Shaun has removed a lot of video's from his YT channel. Most disappointingly "Take your hands off my private conveyence" is no more.

Pity i rather enjoyed that one.

I wonder why he took them down?
He was quite bullish about his chances in court on the charges he faced.
I don't believe for one moment he has seen sense, well, I hope he hasn't.

[IDIOT]

Back on Topic, Shaun has removed a lot of video's from his YT channel. Most disappointingly "Take your hands off my private conveyence" is no more.

Pity i rather enjoyed that one.

Good idea to copy videos that provide the most entertainment using a website called Keepvid for re-upload.