ballaughbiker Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Stop being dodgy is the simple answer. True but one or two of our finest may have a different opinion to you as to what constitutes being dodgy. Lets say a young person is driving a fully legal car at the speed limit through the empty roads of Sulby at 2am. Now that's well dodgy isn't it? Well a certain Ramsey PC thought so and detained someone close to me for a considerable time well in excess of that reasonably required for his speculative check of driver and vehicle. Reason for stopping? - driving to slowly which actually was 30 in a 30...... PC C was the gobby one on this occasion to impress two younger coppers with him who were all no doubt bored out of their apparently tiny minds on a quiet night shift. Of course this left the law abiding individual who was definitely harassed with a long lasting unfortunate impression the police. As a result they may not get his full help should they ever need it in the future. You reap what you sow PC C. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 18, 2013 Author Share Posted April 18, 2013 Well if you believe the grounds were not there make a complaint. Its easy enough to say but, from personal experience, I'd say its much wiser to stay beneath the radar of the local police as far as possible. A few years ago, after being involved in a dispute that ended up making some officers look a bit foolish, my vehicle was followed much too frequently to be mere coincidence - both by visible and 'unmarked' police cars (we all know them!) - just waiting to pounce if I did anything wrong. That's weird (or probably isn't) because I was told of someone living down north being very suspicious about how the police were treating him seemingly following his car and stopping him a lot of times for all sorts of trivial things. It happened ever since a complaint had been made. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 18, 2013 Author Share Posted April 18, 2013 (edited) Cops aren't going to just stop search you for no reason. Stop being dodgy is the simple answer. What is considered dodgy could be understood differently. The issue is whether there is some connection to a crime or very good reason for thinking something specific like drugs or stolen goods is held, I thought. Edited April 18, 2013 by La_Dolce_Vita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Cops aren't going to just stop search you for no reason. Stop being dodgy is the simple answer. What is considered dodgy could be understood differently. The issue is whether there is some connection to a crime or very good reason for thinking something specific like drugs or stolen goods is held, I thought. A house is broken into or a car is vandalised, it is 1am and your say round the corner from where it happened walking home you know yourself you have done nothing wrong but if a police officer drove by and didn't stop and speak to you they wouldn't be doing their job. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 (edited) Cops aren't going to just stop search you for no reason. Stop being dodgy is the simple answer. What is considered dodgy could be understood differently. The issue is whether there is some connection to a crime or very good reason for thinking something specific like drugs or stolen goods is held, I thought. A house is broken into or a car is vandalised, it is 1am and your say round the corner from where it happened walking home you know yourself you have done nothing wrong but if a police officer drove by and didn't stop and speak to you they wouldn't be doing their job. thommo, I have no objection with relevant inquiries being made by a police officer in the course of his duty but it becomes unnacceptable when the situation escalates and the innocent party ends up being unreasonably detained ,searched etc that things get out of hand. Wrongful arrest/detention and harassment does occasionally happen and is evidenced by John Wrights earlier post. Edited April 18, 2013 by Lisenchuk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 PC C was the gobby one on this occasion to impress two younger coppers with him who were all no doubt bored out of their apparently tiny minds on a quiet night shift. Of course this left the law abiding individual who was definitely harassed with a long lasting unfortunate impression the police. As a result they may not get his full help should they ever need it in the future. You reap what you sow PC C. Agreed. There are some officers who appear to have forgotten that in these parts we have what is known as "policing by consent". One arrogant officer who was particularly insulting ended up having a cosy little chat with his Chief Constable. The problem is that it's not the arrogant copper who suffers when co-operation is less that forthcoming shall we say. It's the victim who ultimately pays for poor policing practices. So you should always carry on giving your full co-operation and if you feel hard done by i.e. doing 30 in a 30 limit, write down as much as you remember as soon as you can after the event and as a first step write to the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable ultimately works for you so EVERY letter sent to the CC is replied to. If you don't like the reply the next step will be to speak to one of his staffers. Eventually you may end up speaking to the CC himself. In the past I have told a copper that I would be writing to the CC about him. He told me it wouldn't do me any good. I told him it would do him a lot less good when letters of complaint start being attached to his personnel file where they will stay for as long as he is in the force. He didn't like that but then he shouldn't have been banging on my door at 2:00 am having gone to the wrong address and then tried to arrogantly fob it off. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 18, 2013 Author Share Posted April 18, 2013 (edited) Was this in the UK? There's a separate commission for complaints now Across, I think. Just seems nuts not having some sort of independent body here. I appreciate there are costs, but still. Edited April 18, 2013 by La_Dolce_Vita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Yes it was the UK. But don't forget you can still write to the CC about any topic and he HAS to reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 28, 2022 Share Posted February 28, 2022 On 4/16/2013 at 8:58 AM, John Wright said: ATTORNEY GENERAL v. COWLEY and KINRADE 1522 - 1920 MLR 107 (PC) Decided in the mid 1860's. This was a case where two men were prosecuted for trespassing onto the queens land, the forest, ie the moorland, (now public land held on trust for the crown for the public service of the Isle of Man) makes it quite clear in Manx terms that land owned by the state is private. The two men being prosecuted believed the land was "common" and they could go where they wanted We have no rights of ramblage as such, Douglas Head apart, but private owners (including Government Departments) can give consent by express or implied means, so look at notice at Manx Glens etc. The AG v Cowley & Kinrade case is on point with Homarus and his fishing case, strange no one has quoted it, or so it seems. Clearly establishes that Crown or Publicly owned land is "private" Quoted as relevant to the Nut Glen debate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 1, 2022 Author Share Posted March 1, 2022 Hi Gladys, I had a brief read of that and I see what you mean. The Cowley and Kinrade decision sounds interesting though. How would I get access to that to read it? It's a shame that the glen has ended up with the name of 'Nut Glen because that is almost certainly not its proper name. It used to be called 'Glion Cro' and 'cro' does mean nut, but the stream is Struan ny Craue (which is more commonly known as the Lickney stream). Craue means 'wild garlic' and Ramsey means 'wild garlic river'. The name Ramsey probably refers to the Struan ny Craue and is the (older?) name for the stream. Anyway, it is a shame people are not using the manx and just called it Glion Cro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) 12 hours ago, La_Dolce_Vita said: The name Ramsey probably refers to the Struan ny Craue and is the (older?) name for the stream. Some of the explanations for archaic names on the IOM are a bit odd. There are other places around the Irish sea basin called "Ramsey" and they don't all have wild garlic or rivers, and they're possibly related to bird colonies or to settler names, maybe from the Norse name "Hrafn", which means "Raven". The modern "Rhumsaa" name is pretty speculative, I never use it. Edited March 2, 2022 by The Bastard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 2, 2022 Author Share Posted March 2, 2022 I've noticed in some place name books that an author will give an explanation of a name and then there will be a spot that is very close and with an identical part of the name but the translation is different. I mean, for example, that there might be a stream that runs through a field, for example, or a croft by a road. Sometimes the etymologies that are given are not the same so they come across as being a best guess with no connection to the local places and their names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.