"T i m" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 21:20:37 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 18:59:10 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

Basically to have remembered an incident which you claim was
not at all unusual from 40+ years ago in such precise terms,
"3 times in 4 weeks" is quite remarkable. Don't you think ?

Quite the opposite (of course).

The fact that it was unusual was the *very reason* they stuck in my
mind.

Now, what I couldn't tell you (without checking my licence) is the
exact day, month or even year because I don't remember that sort of
*data* very well[1].

From which it could reasonably concluded that you'd committed some
offence

Doesn't need to be concluded Sherlock, I mentioned what it was.
Exceeding the speed limit for a goods vehicle (whilst being under the
actual speed limit on that road, which was the limit I thought I was
limited to).

which was revealed by one of these stops and that your licence
was endorsed as a result.

There is no stopping you today is there speedy. ;-)

Otherwise how would your licence help you in
establishing the date ?

Quite.

Strange how you never mentioned any of this before.

Any of this??? I thought I mentioned 3 of the instances and simply
forgot that one ... till my memory was jogged. Nothing suspicious,
just not a data extraction that you might offer.

Maybe you were already
acting suspiciously, which was why you were being stopped.

Yes, in all cases there was a 'good reason' I was stopped, one was
*considered* suspicious and one resulted in prosecution.

They were paying extra interest in vans because one Policeman told me
they were tasked with doing so.

1) The speeding where I was let off I was simply keeping up with all
the other traffic (and he knew / accepted I was). I was just the one
in a van at the time he was going along there.

2) The speeding where I was done I was about the only car on the road
and had seen them in my mirror for the 1.7 miles they said they had
been VASCAR'ing me. I didn't slow because I was only doing ~60 in
(what I thought was) a 70 limit. The road was a derestricted dual
carriageway, my vehicle was restricted (I learned). Had I had two
windows of at least two square feet (one each side) behind the drivers
seating position then I could have registered it as a 'Multipurpose
Vehicle' and would have been seen / treated the same as a car. I
already had windows in the rear doors of 100 sq inches (each) as that
was the other requirement. I could have fitted the windows as it was
over 7 years old so wouldn't have been liable for any extra duty.

3) The one where I was seen running into a copse in the middle of
nowhere was considered (at the time) as possibly acting suspiciously.
I told the Policeman that stopped me further up the road exactly what
I had been doing and he was happy with my reply.

4) They saw my cycle though the front windscreen as they passed me in
the other direction and asked me to prove it was mine. It was gone
midnight and really didn't want them waking my parents up at that time
but I had to as there was no other way. They did, they told them what
they wanted to hear and I was sent on my way.

So the three times you just happened to be stopped within a relatively
short period were all perfectly explicable ?

So what has any of this to do with Dawn Butler ?

She wasn't in a van with windows in the rear doors or a bicycle in
the back, which was subject to a speed limit of which she was
totally unaware.

And neither was she seen running into a copse in the middle of nowhere.

So what is your point exactly ?


michael adams

....

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:15:52 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

snip

So the three times you just happened to be stopped within a relatively
short period were all perfectly explicable ?

Of course?

So what has any of this to do with Dawn Butler ?

Nothing particular, please keep up.

She wasn't in a van with windows in the rear doors or a bicycle in
the back, which was subject to a speed limit of which she was
totally unaware.

See above.

And neither was she seen running into a copse in the middle of nowhere.

See above.

So what is your point exactly ?

What's yours. Have you run out of stupid questions to ask over and
over and now have nowhere to go?

Or are you now going to claim you have never heard of thread drift?

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:15:52 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

snip

So the three times you just happened to be stopped within a relatively
short period were all perfectly explicable ?

Of course?

So what has any of this to do with Dawn Butler ?

Nothing particular, please keep up.

She wasn't in a van with windows in the rear doors or a bicycle in
the back, which was subject to a speed limit of which she was
totally unaware.

See above.

And neither was she seen running into a copse in the middle of nowhere.

See above.

So what is your point exactly ?

What's yours.

It was *you* not me, if you remember, who claimed that there was nothing
remarkable about Dawn Butler getting stopped; as you'd been stopped
3 times in 4 weeks 40 odd years ago,

Have you run out of stupid questions to ask

However it was only in response to my questions, which you clearly
didn't consider "stupid" at the time, seeing as you answered them
all so fully, that it soon became apparent that there were very good
reasons for your having been stopped on each occasion.

So that your situation of 40 years ago and Dawn Butler's are in no
way comparable.

*That* was and is, my point.


michael adams

....

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 11:06:25 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

snip

So what is your point exactly ?

What's yours.

It was *you* not me, if you remember, who claimed that there was nothing
remarkable about Dawn Butler getting stopped; as you'd been stopped
3 times in 4 weeks 40 odd years ago,

Cite that I made such a link.

Have you run out of stupid questions to ask

However it was only in response to my questions, which you clearly
didn't consider "stupid" at the time,

Again with the 'left brainer' 'clearly'. I was giving you answers to
the questions you were asking and more than once in ever increasing
detail.

seeing as you answered them
all so fully,

Yup ..

that it soon became apparent that there were very good
reasons for your having been stopped on each occasion.

Well, it didn't seem to be 'soon' but we got there in the end eh. ;-)

So that your situation of 40 years ago and Dawn Butler's are in no
way comparable.

Never suggested they were?

*That* was and is, my point.

And that wasn't ever mine.

"Now, the question as to why may be based on a myriad of reasons /
circumstances / situations.

Like, I was stopped 3 times in 4 weeks when driving my Morris Minor
van. Why? Because they were having a 'binge' on vans and that's what I
was driving at the time. Profiling? [1]"

No more, no less.

The problem (with you) is you can't read between the lines (not your
fault etc). 'I was' (past tense) rather than 'I have been' (more
current tense), I've not mentioned having a MM van before and the
'having a binge on' indicates a form of profiling (van / van drivers).

Whilst vans / van drivers may be a statistical minority, they may well
disproportionately reflect vehicle deficiency or crime in which case,
such profiling is relevant (for efficient use of Police time /
resources).

Anyway, nothing to see here, move along ...

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 11:06:25 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

snip

So what is your point exactly ?

What's yours.

It was *you* not me, if you remember, who claimed that there was nothing
remarkable about Dawn Butler getting stopped; as you'd been stopped
3 times in 4 weeks 40 odd years ago,

Cite that I made such a link.

"T i m" wrote in message
...

Like, I was stopped 3 times in 4 weeks when driving my Morris Minor
van. Why? Because they were having a 'binge' on vans and that's what I
was driving at the time. Profiling? [1]

That was version 1. You were stopped because they were having a "binge"
on vans. However a bit later on you posted as follows

"T i m" wrote in message
news
3) The one where I was seen running into a copse in the middle of
nowhere was considered (at the time) as possibly acting suspiciously.
I told the Policeman that stopped me further up the road exactly what
I had been doing and he was happy with my reply.

In version 2 you were stopped because you'd been seen running into a
copse. Nothing to do with you being in a van at all.

You do see the problem I take it ?


The problem (with you) is you can't read between the lines (not your
fault etc).

So that not only am I required to read every line you post, but I'm
supposed to be reading *between* the lines as well ?

Maybe when I've got the odd few weeks to spare I'll consider it; but
in the meantime there remains this difficulty with the supposed van
"binge" as against you being spotted running off into this copse.


michael adams

....

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:45:29 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

snip

In version 2 you were stopped because you'd been seen running into a
copse. Nothing to do with you being in a van at all.

You do see the problem I take it ?

Yes:

1) You still can't prove any link to what I was saying and the topic
of the thread, other than coincidental.

2) I was seen going into the copse *from* my van (did that really need
explaining)?


The problem (with you) is you can't read between the lines (not your
fault etc).

So that not only am I required to read every line you post,

Required, no, if you choose to, that's up to you?

but I'm
supposed to be reading *between* the lines as well ?

Well, if you wanted to comprehend the *spirit* of what anyone is
saying then 'of course'. [1]

Maybe when I've got the odd few weeks to spare I'll consider it; but
in the meantime there remains this difficulty with the supposed van
"binge" as against you being spotted running off into this copse.

See above.

Cheers, T i m

[1] There is often loads more in a conversation than just the words.

"T i m" wrote in message
...

1) You still can't prove any link to what I was saying and the topic
of the thread, other than coincidental.

2) I was seen going into the copse *from* my van (did that really need
explaining)?

But that implies that had you been seen running into the copse in the
middle of nowhere from say a car, then that wouldn't have been seen as
suspicious

"The one where I was seen running into a copse in the middle of
nowhere was considered (at the time) as possibly acting suspiciously.

Are you seriously suggesting that the suspiciousness or otherwis of people
running into copses in the middle of nowhere can in *any* way be dependent
on what type of vehicle they're driving ? That's assuming they have a
vehicle at all. Aren't people seen running into copses in the middle of
nowhere acting suspiciously regardless?

Which isn't to say that they should all be dealt with in the same way.
Obviously were the Cheif Constable or the chaiirman of the police
committee to be seen running into a copse, while still highly suspicious
its doubtful the matter would be investgated any further.


[1] There is often loads more in a conversation than just the words.

Well obviously. Gestures, funny faces, to name but a few.


michael adams

....

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 19:03:16 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
.. .

1) You still can't prove any link to what I was saying and the topic
of the thread, other than coincidental.

2) I was seen going into the copse *from* my van (did that really need
explaining)?

But that implies that had you been seen running into the copse in the
middle of nowhere from say a car, then that wouldn't have been seen as
suspicious

Correct (however ilogical from a practical 'planting explosives' pov).

"The one where I was seen running into a copse in the middle of
nowhere was considered (at the time) as possibly acting suspiciously.

Are you seriously suggesting that the suspiciousness or otherwis of people
running into copses in the middle of nowhere can in *any* way be dependent
on what type of vehicle they're driving ?

I am indeed.

That's assuming they have a
vehicle at all

Then the vehicle bit wouldn't come into it, would it Sherlock.

Aren't people seen running into copses in the middle of
nowhere acting suspiciously regardless?

They may well be, but if say I was carrying an AK47 or a bundle of
dynamite then it would have been even more so.

Which isn't to say that they should all be dealt with in the same way.
Obviously were the Cheif Constable or the chaiirman of the police
committee to be seen running into a copse, while still highly suspicious
its doubtful the matter would be investgated any further.

Quite ... and just the same as my case then.


[1] There is often loads more in a conversation than just the words.

Well obviously.

Well, 'not obviously' to everyone.

Gestures, funny faces, to name but a few.

Yup, like tone of voice, intonation, eye movement, body language, what
clothes you wear, what hat you have on, vehicle you are driving, where
you are driving it and when ... *can* all be indicative of some
activity that might be worthy of further attention.

Eg, Someone driving a Nissan Micra with clear windows in a safe and
sensible manner, with his wife and kids, with everyone wearing their
safety belts, close to but not over or way under the speed limit and
not 'reacting' to the presence of a Police car (that's not on a shout)
and with a reg that matches that vehicle and all the paperwork up to
date, is unlikely to be stopped.

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 19:03:16 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

Which isn't to say that they should all be dealt with in the same way.
Obviously were the Cheif Constable or the chaiirman of the police
committee to be seen running into a copse, while still highly suspicious
its doubtful the matter would be investgated any further.

Quite ... and just the same as my case then.

Indeed. The police pull you over and ask you to explain what you were
doing. Unfortunately, after 10 minutes they explain they have to answer
an urgent call from H.Q. and just wander off.


Eg, Someone driving a Nissan Micra with clear windows in a safe and
sensible manner, with his wife and kids, with everyone wearing their
safety belts, close to but not over or way under the speed limit and
not 'reacting' to the presence of a Police car (that's not on a shout)
and with a reg that matches that vehicle and all the paperwork up to
date, is unlikely to be stopped.

But why would plod be doing PNC checks on such a car in the first place ?

Which was my actual point.

Don't tell me. That day they were having a purge on Nissan Micras with
clear windows being driven in a sensible manner by drivers accompanied
by their wives and kids. Rather than say all these expensive cars on
the road being driven by black people who clearly couldn't afford them
unless they were pimps or drug dealers.

So its looks as if you were a bit unlucky really. In the days you
were being regularly pulled in your mini-van, most likely there weren't too
many suspected black drug dealers and pimps driving around in beemers
and mercs who plod could concentrate on. They must have all came
a bit later.


michael adams

....

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 10:31:05 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 19:03:16 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

Which isn't to say that they should all be dealt with in the same way.
Obviously were the Cheif Constable or the chaiirman of the police
committee to be seen running into a copse, while still highly suspicious
its doubtful the matter would be investgated any further.

Quite ... and just the same as my case then.

Indeed. The police pull you over and ask you to explain what you were
doing.

Yup, they did.

Unfortunately, after 10 minutes they explain they have to answer
an urgent call from H.Q. and just wander off.

Nope, after I answered their questions as quickly, accurately as
honestly as possible and they checked my credentials over the radio,
they sent me on my way.


Eg, Someone driving a Nissan Micra with clear windows in a safe and
sensible manner, with his wife and kids, with everyone wearing their
safety belts, close to but not over or way under the speed limit and
not 'reacting' to the presence of a Police car (that's not on a shout)
and with a reg that matches that vehicle and all the paperwork up to
date, is unlikely to be stopped.

But why would plod be doing PNC checks on such a car in the first place ?

ANPR in their car, pings up without them *doing* anything. Sometimes
the online databases aren't up to date so it might ping up 'Uninsured'
when it is. They stop, check, send you on your way. There could also
be a marker on it and / or on plates that are cloned (and you are the
innocent party).

Which was my actual point.

Then you should have asked.

Don't tell me. That day they were having a purge on Nissan Micras with
clear windows being driven in a sensible manner by drivers accompanied
by their wives and kids. Rather than say all these expensive cars on
the road being driven by black people who clearly couldn't afford them
unless they were pimps or drug dealers.

See above.

So its looks as if you were a bit unlucky really.

Only for the instance when I was actually speeding but (was
consciously) unaware I was. Ignorance is no defence etc. All the
others were perfectly acceptable (in their need and the outcome).

In the days you
were being regularly pulled in your mini-van,

Morris Minor van ...

most likely there weren't too
many suspected black drug dealers and pimps driving around in beemers
and mercs who plod could concentrate on.

I'm sure there were but might have been in Jags and Rovers.

They must have all came
a bit later.

People have used cars to carry criminals and the results of crime
since there were vehicles and there have always been a class of
vehicles associated with such (Even if you go back to the days of
running Moonshine).

"When it came to modifying a Moonshine car, the number one rule was
not to attract any attention.The car had to appear stock, it couldn't
have any fancy paint jobs, chrome pipes, nice wheels, or anything else
that would attract attention and make the car stand out on the road."

https://www.rodauthority.com/news/mo...y-of-hot-rods/

So, profiling was in action back then and why if you are black and
want to deal drugs you might be better of taking your kids with you in
your Micra than your full 'privacy glass' lowered X5. ;-)


Cheers, T i m

On 13/08/2020 11:15, T i m wrote:

People have used cars to carry criminals and the results of crime
since there were vehicles and there have always been a class of
vehicles associated with such (Even if you go back to the days of
running Moonshine).

"When it came to modifying a Moonshine car, the number one rule was
not to attract any attention.The car had to appear stock, it couldn't
have any fancy paint jobs, chrome pipes, nice wheels, or anything else
that would attract attention and make the car stand out on the road."

https://www.rodauthority.com/news/mo...y-of-hot-rods/

So, profiling was in action back then and why if you are black and
want to deal drugs you might be better of taking your kids with you in
your Micra than your full 'privacy glass' lowered X5. ;-)

There's no point in being a drug dealer if you can't drive a fancy motor.

--
Max Demian

"T i m" wrote in message
...

So, profiling was in action back then and why if you are black and
want to deal drugs you might be better of taking your kids with you in
your Micra than your full 'privacy glass' lowered X5. ;-)

There are at least three films about the Hatton Garden job,

In two, those in which Kenneth Cranham and Michael Caine respectively
played Brian Reader, one of the other robbers Kenny Collins (played
by Tom Courtney in the Caine one) already owned a flash white Mercedes.
This was the only "flash" shown by any of them but featured
strongly in both films as attracting the unwelcome attention of plod.
The irony being that they never even had time to fence the stuff
(as far as is known - maybe the timescales are a bit iffy) and
most Mercs and Beemers are probably bought on finance in any case.


michael adams

....

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 13:34:27 +0100, Max Demian
wrote:

On 13/08/2020 11:15, T i m wrote:

People have used cars to carry criminals and the results of crime
since there were vehicles and there have always been a class of
vehicles associated with such (Even if you go back to the days of
running Moonshine).

"When it came to modifying a Moonshine car, the number one rule was
not to attract any attention.The car had to appear stock, it couldn't
have any fancy paint jobs, chrome pipes, nice wheels, or anything else
that would attract attention and make the car stand out on the road."

https://www.rodauthority.com/news/mo...y-of-hot-rods/

So, profiling was in action back then and why if you are black and
want to deal drugs you might be better of taking your kids with you in
your Micra than your full 'privacy glass' lowered X5. ;-)

There's no point in being a drug dealer if you can't drive a fancy motor.

If you are also looking to be 'a big man' in that game then I'm sure
you are right but many of the smaller 'end user' dealers seem to be
happy to be on foot or use cycles and mopeds. ;-)

I smell weed being smoked more often than I smell std tobacco these
days.

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 13:52:38 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
.. .

So, profiling was in action back then and why if you are black and
want to deal drugs you might be better of taking your kids with you in
your Micra than your full 'privacy glass' lowered X5. ;-)

There are at least three films about the Hatton Garden job,

In two, those in which Kenneth Cranham and Michael Caine respectively
played Brian Reader, one of the other robbers Kenny Collins (played
by Tom Courtney in the Caine one) already owned a flash white Mercedes.
This was the only "flash" shown by any of them but featured
strongly in both films as attracting the unwelcome attention of plod.

Quite.

The irony being that they never even had time to fence the stuff
(as far as is known - maybe the timescales are a bit iffy)

Ok.

and
most Mercs and Beemers are probably bought on finance in any case.

Not by drug dealers I doubt as they have to launder their cash how
they can and an expensive / fast / flash motor is a good way to do
that (private sale).

That is the problem with loads of ''unaccountable cash, how to spend
it (apparently). ;-)

Similar problem with a high electricity bill and an over-warm garage
or loft. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 13/08/2020 11:15, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 10:31:05 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 19:03:16 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

Which isn't to say that they should all be dealt with in the same way.
Obviously were the Cheif Constable or the chaiirman of the police
committee to be seen running into a copse, while still highly suspicious
its doubtful the matter would be investgated any further.

Quite ... and just the same as my case then.

Indeed. The police pull you over and ask you to explain what you were
doing.

Yup, they did.

Unfortunately, after 10 minutes they explain they have to answer
an urgent call from H.Q. and just wander off.

Nope, after I answered their questions as quickly, as possible

Yeah, right.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 18:35:55 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip


Nope, after I answered their questions as quickly, as possible

Yeah, right.

Yup, it was quite funny actually. The van was ex BT with the number
plate over the rear doors and had been painted brilliant white by the
PO.

The Policeman caught up with me, indicated I pull over (which I did)
and he asked for the keys (that I gave him), the then asked me to go
round to the back of the van and open the doors, which I did. He then
asked me what 'that' was in the back of the van., I replied, 'my coat'
(I used to keep an old Ex Arm Parka in there from my scootering days).
He then asked, 'what's under it', again wondering where the hidden
camera were, I replied, 'nothing?' ... do he lifted it up slowly with
one hand and lo and behold ... 'the nothing' I told him.

Then he pointed to my toolbox (and ex BT plastic equipment case
thing). 'What's in it', he asks ... 'Tools' I replied ... and he ask's
me to open the lid and lift a few out (which I did).

He then asks, 'what colour is the vehicle Sir' ... now given I was now
standing face height with the back of the (brilliant white) roof I
replied 'white' (initially wondering where the hidden cameras were).
Then he asked me for the reg, which was in both of our faces ... so I
told him whilst making a point of looking away from the number plate.

He then asked me if I was the owner / keeper and I said I was, he went
and checked and came back and said that was fine.

He then asked me what I was doing 'back there' and I told him and he
said the reason he had stopped me is because a minicab driver had seen
me 'acting suspiciously' ... but everything checked out and I was free
to go.

It turned out that further in the copse there was an Electricity Board
substation that had I blown it up would probably have taken out 20
streetlights in Bushy, well, unless it was also the entrance to a
secret nuclear bunker ... ?

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...

Not by drug dealers I doubt as they have to launder their cash how
they can and an expensive / fast / flash motor is a good way to do
that (private sale).

All their motors will be on finance. In that way they deflect suspicion
by plod who nowadays will probably have access to such inforamtion with
seconds. If you're trying to hide the proceeds of ill-gotten gains you
don't drive it around on public roads.


That is the problem with loads of ''unaccountable cash, how to spend
it (apparently). ;-)

Not really. You use it as hidden capital to establish businesses which
may, or may not, provide a legitimate source of income. All that's
required after that, are the services of a good accountant with
a well deserved reputation for not asking too many awkward questions.


michael adams

....