The Bike Incident
Now where on earth do I begin ? Do I even begin ?
Firstly, my intuition tells me that defending myself is not the best idea for reasons obvious to some.
This short film has obviously stirred up a hornets nest and there are so many angles from which to look. There's the psychological angle - mine,the PCs and the commentators, the legal angle, spiritual angle (related to 'freedom') and philosophical angle and probably many others
Before I begin, I actually want to apologise to PC Stout. At first, I gave the film to a film editor I know to blank out his face and number but I then allowed myself to be persuaded to put it up with him on it. I do regret that now. Although in a way, I think I embarrass myself as much as he embarrasses himself.
I had a great co-counselling session with a friend on Friday and his observation was along the transactional analysis model. He said it was a classic case of PC Stout being the critical parent and myself the rebellious child. This mean that neither of us were free but stuck in our roles. I apologise therefore for being difficult. I dont apologise for answering questions, even difficult ones, but my tone was not loving and compassionate and for that I apologise. I do agree with the comments who say he was just doing his job. The problem is, what exactly is his job and how has he been trained to do it ?
One of the primary motives for putting up the film was to help us all question our understanding of the law, what it is, how it operates and how it is being 'policed' This is how one commentator put it...
The police and their civillian colleagues believe in a primary school style law.
They are the teachers and you are the pupil.
But once you are a big boy, with your big boy pants on, you're an adult.
Teachers can't tell adults what to do, only ask.
This school style law is optional, but works well on the consenting.
This world is full of every type, some love to be dominated and punished.
They have every right to love it and every right to defend it.
Dan has his big boy pants on, thats all.
The opening gambit of PC Stout which is of course common, was 'Do you know why I have stopped you ?' For me, the problem with that question is that (a) it is designed to trap me into self incrimination. It is also very condescending - surely one would never speak like that to a friend or an equal. It sets up this conversation whereby I am the naughty boy and he is the grown up telling me off.
I then tell him my lawyer advises me to be silent. If I were more skilled, I could have simply shut up at that point. I think that would have been powerful.
He then keeps on asking self incriminating questions like 'Why shouldn't I give you a ticket ?' etc
I ask if I am obliged to answer that. I then make a crucial point which I only learned very recently. I do not have to take the paperwork. I never have to accept anything from them. He doesn't know this which is why he answers 'of course you do' to my question.
I then quiz him about getting my details. He doesn't seem to really know the law about this and I quiz him more. I did not decline to give my details. i just kept on asking questions. Remember , the whole clip is only 4.5 mins long !! He often avoids answering my questions and again quite typically keeps on repeating his. He then changes the whole thing to a 'request' which is quite clever because anyone can request anything they like from anyone else. I could have requested he takes his clothes off if I wanted to ! I am aware of that trick so I ask if its a request or an order.
Eventually he gets so angry he lunges for the camera and I intuitively leave the scene in fear of my cameras health and my own. Had he not done that, I would have supplied my details and left him to put this through the system. To the best of my knowledge, he would have found it hard to nail me because it was his word against mine which is not enough to prove anything. Or maybe he would have and I would have had to pay a fine.
This leads me to the precautionary principle. And to the psychology of some of the vicious comments.
Firstly, here is a comment from someone...
The PP (which fits into the Hegelian Dialectic) has been so drummed into everyone's brains we don't even notice.
The PP says that Danny should be locked up anyway for *nearly* causing mass murder with his cycling terror and subsequent OJ style evasion of justice. Yet no mention of the ACTUAL mass murder and justice evasion happening right now all over the real world!!
Real atrocities are downplayed while threats of terror are overblown.
I would like to ask any of the commentators who said things like 'I hope he gets killed on the road !' or other crazy and nasty things....
have you ever....
(a) driven whilst on a mobile ?
(b) TEXTED whilst driving ?
(c) been through a red light driving ON PURPOSE
Surely, these things are far more dangerous than going through a red light on a bike (in my case allegedly) - I wonder why you are so angry ? could it be projected anger when you know yhou do things far worse ?
And do any of you eat meat ? If so, i could argue that you are party to the killing of billions of animals, often living in terrible conditions and you the audacity to judge me for going ALLEGEDLY running a red light when nobody is claiming I have harmed a living soul ?
And if you people out there are such fans of the law and its being upheld, how about this (this applies especially to police officers)
take a look at this government webpage
Print it out and read it on the toilet (then wipe your backside with it) but before you do, read it carefully especially the definition of terrorism. You will see that the British army's actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya seem clearly to fall under the Uk Governments own definition of terrorism. In this case, if any of you pay tax or know anybody else who does, and you havent reported them to the police, you are committing an offense (see part III terrorism propert - duty of disclosure)
Now compare the actual killing and maiming of thousands perhaps millions of people with the POTENTIAL hurting of another with a bike running a red light ! See what you are missing folks ! Its all so very clever.
This to me is a big one - all words are just pointers. To me this points to many things and nothing including freedom. We seem to be losing our freedoms and being set upon by a police FORCE. Why is it called a force ? As I begun to rock the boat a bit, I noticed that many police officers were no longer acting as peace officers but instead seemed to be acting against me. As mentioned bove, it is very common for Police officers to talk down to us like naughty school children. This is part of a whole culture of bullying. (see http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot#p/search/4/_KxUkRdjD3k)