Gwent Police confirm cyclist submitting close pass footage could face prosecution for swearing (+ video ... which includes swearing)

I presume that Gwent Police also remind all other victims of any kind of assault that they will be prosecuted for bad language......

For what it's worth many of the submissions that I've made to Herts Police have contained bad language and insults (from me). Not once have Herts cautioned me in this way.

F off it can be illigall to use a verb

I am afraid this attitude from the Police is not new. In 1983 after I was knocked off my Motorcycle by a car driver not looking before pulling out on me the Police officers who interviewed me were more fussed about my effing and jeffing at the dopey driver than they were at the fact they nearly killed me. I remember remarking "sorry next time I must remember to say thank you when someone tries to kill me"......Two wheels equals 2nd class treatment I'm afraid.

Fuck me. What a bunch of clear conviction dodging lazy waste of taxpayers money these twats are.

So by their definition, an innocent woman being raped or an innocent person being murdered but swearing while the act is happening could put the conviction in doubt because their character could be brought in to question?

People depend on these idiots doing their jobs properly. Confidence has never been so low in the police and it's things like this that are the reason.

Where do I sign to defund these fuckwits?

I am a criminal defence solicitor and this is, as many say, absolute rubbish. there is a world of difference in swearing at someone when in shock or fear at a close pass and, say, following them after swearing at them constantly.
I suggest a letter to the duty Inspector asking he or she to comment may be a good idea. 
 

Bloody hell Nick. You're having a hell of a time with the police lately. We'll have to go for a ride soon, i got front and rear cameras these days so god only knows what i'd end up recording riding with you again 

Gwent Police can go **** themselves, the st*&&%$ co#*&%** w@*&%s   

The police, at least in Lancashire, are always looking for dodges which they can deploy to avoid doing anything about anything. You've seen them all on here: there must be 2 or 5, or whatever they think you haven't got, minutes of video before and after the incident or, they lie, it's not admissible evidence; there has to be confirmatory video from the offending vehicle; the cyclist must have braked or wobbled or the pass wasn't close enough; we can't possibly use video shown on social media because it has been rendered inadmissible etc. etc. Now we have the assertion someone swearing to himself is such a heinous offence against public order that nearly terminating a cyclist pales into insignificance. It's all complete bollocks which they just make up from their tortured psyches- they're just trying it on and you have to complain and then complain again. Just as in this case, they often try to intimidate the complainant with threats that he will be prosecuted. Unless you really have done something pretty bad (not these non-offences like swearing to yourself) just call the bluff- these people are not very bright and don't plan ahead very well. They're also not too good on the law because they routinely ignore the legislation supporting the Highway Code when cyclists are involved. I recall the Blackpool Traffic Sergeant threatening to prosecute me for not moving far enough to the left to allow the hapless driver to pass me conveniently in a normal width lane and forcing him to cross the double unbroken white lines in a dangerous position. He said he would have to examine the video to see whether I should be prosecuted. I urged him to do this, but I never heard from him again.

Remember, when the offenders are undoubtedly guilty the police are the hidden enemy!

It doesn't take long searching online to find numerous videos of Police officers swearing at potential crims when they are trying to arrest them. Telling them to "GET ON THE F#%*ING GROUND" and other similar instruction, very often at high volume. How is that acceptable, yet they may not proceed with a case if the victim of a close pass has sworn in an impulsive response to fearing for their life? Makes me wonder if some of the videos I have submitted over the years to South Wales Police have been ignored simply because I swore in them.    

It seems to me on that either the video reviewer has a sensitive disposition or they have misinterpreted guidelines meant when someone is swearing and causes rage from the other user. Ie two cars almost have a collision and the one driver then swears at the other who then brake tests / leads to a confrontation. 

But I would release this to the press / MP as if someone doesn't swear when there life is put in danger, when can they. However if you have another video where you can show the life threatening and swearing but don't appear to breach road rules or etiquette it would be better because otherwise the points will be lost in "whatabouterism"

When I went to court as a witness in a close passing incident, the defence solicitor said that the pass couldn't have been to severe because I couldn't be heard swearing at the driver....

In the video above the car passes dangerously close, then stops to allow the opposing vehicle (which has priority) through. Nick, the cyclist, then passes the vehicle and heads through, even though he didn't have priority, and should have given way.

I would not have submitted that footage in that position, since his own cycling would obviously have been called into question, regardless of the dangerous driving of others around him.

"We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write 'f***' on their airplanes because it's obscene !"

Quote:

Gwent Police denied the latter claim, saying that he wouldn’t be brought in for interview just from submitting footage, but instead was being reminded that he had committed public order offences, there is a chance his footage could be discounted by the CPS, and that he may be called in for interview if a complaint were made against him for using bad language.

So, if Gwent Police deny the claim. Does that mean Sergeant Austin didn't make the threat in a voicemail message and also in the subsequent conversation when I called him back, or are they suggesting I made it up?

If only I had the evidence to back up my claims. It's a good job I have a recording of both the voicemail message and phone call. There was a clear threat to bring me in for an interview with the intention to prosecute me.

I'm still waiting to hear back from Gwent Police as I made a complaint. However, after reading their response to Road.cc, I'm not expecting much.

Apparently the swearing still brings my character in question. If only Gwent Police were as concerned regarding my safety.

Thanks to Simon, Jack and Road.cc for posting the article 👍

Let's pick this one apart.

- Police Sargeant uses an excuse to try and deter Nick Thompson submitting such a high volume of close pass videos, in order to prevent the Constabulary being swamped

- Deputy Chief Constable provides a statement to overrule Police Sargeant's feedback realising that the view would further erode trust in the police to protect vulnerable road users such as cyclists

The feedback from the Sargeant shows that there is lack of understanding of how scary a close pass can be and why a victim would be compelled to swear. As we all know already, there's still a long road ahead before all we feel safe and protected when riding on the roads.

Keen cyclists eh? then they'll know where to use their famous "police discretion"....

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that the best way for cyclists to see justice dispensed is to carry a baseball bat and dispense it ourselves.