Update on Unpleasant Altercation

How did they actually identify the two off duty officers anyway?

Yes but he might be able to twist this. OP has no witnesses but he does have a witness who we can bet will back him up. I just worry they might deem him not to have accessed the database inappropriately if he can convince the standards board that he had legitimate reasons for doing it. As I said, it may be wise to await the outcome before cracking the Champagne open.

@zerofeeling wow. I have the utmost respect for you keeping your cool on the other thread - there were some bstshit responses on there!
Well done for seeing this through, he deserves the consequences of his actions.

@DCorMe have you seen this update? As a female police officer who defended his actions, what is your response now?

@SoMuchBadAdvice please read this update.

As I’ve already said, I’m not defending the awful police officers.

OP never said she knew she had driven over a piece of large debris. She said she checked the front of their car, not the underneath (and if it was me, I wouldn't even know what to look for underneath, to prove I hadn’t caused any damage by e.g. something getting bent/knocked out of place).

No point in replaying the "should/shouldn’t have given details" disagreement of OP's first thread, but imo it’s not as clear-cut as some are making out.

I'm with you on this @zerofeeling, and really don't understand why people felt the need to be so shitty on your other post.
Many years ago, a speeding driver smashed into the back of me, I had just parked up at the side of the road.
Exchanged details, and lo and behold that night my car was torched.
There was a silver lighter found nearby with his initials on, but that didn't prove anything, according to the police.
Touch wood, not been involved in an accident since, but I would not exchange details if I was, especially as the insurance companies have access to the vehicle database.

I wouldn’t be giving out my insurance details if my car hit something underside . OP said she checked her car and theirs.
If I drive over a bit of large debris and person in neighbouring car assumes I've hit his car, it’s really none of his business to have my insurance details.

That aside, the officers were obviously enjoying intimidating the OP.

Dunno. But I'm pretty sure OP has that covered at this point.

Perhaps you missed the point that it all depends on exactly what OP told the call handler. In any case, does the lack of a need to report it to the police mean you don’t need to exchange insurance details?

Obviously none of us can say for sure what we'd do in a hypothetical situation but I don't think I'd be keen to have given mine in the OPs circs. A noise on its own with no evidence of the car having to come into contact with anything I dont think would meet my criteria of reasonable grounds.

I might have moved my car to see if there was a branch or other item underneath it responsible for the noise but hindsight is 20 20 as they say

I read your previous post OP and it’s quite concerning the number of thickos blaming you !
Well done for reporting police misconduct snd mysoginy. Good outcome !

I think if he has accessed the police database for personal matters, the OP isn't the problem. His behaviour becomes the problem.

Perhaps you missed the post where OP states she reported the alleged accident and was told it wasn't necessary.

The men clearly behaved very wrongly at the time of the incident, and even more so in subsequent events. OP was right to report them and it’s good that they are facing the consequences of their actions.

But that doesn’t alter the fact that the OP was wrong in not giving her details at the time, when there were reasonable grounds to assume that she had caused a collision which might have caused damage, not immediately evident, to their car.

These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Ivy gone and read the previous thread. I hope that many of those posters have had a bloody long hard look at themselves over the last few weeks. Truly shameful comments. But I doubt it.

Your responses were measured and I applaud you for that. I don't think I will have managed that grace.

Even if this does not lead to dismissal it is a record which may add to others.

Personally, I find female police officers more drenched in misogyny than male (exH was police sphere let's say). The female officer commenting demonstrated that.

Well done.

What happens if the hearing against him does not go in your favour? Might be an idea to await the outcome?

Agreed. I remember it and can't go back for a recap, it was too frustrating at the time!

Good for you OP. I remember your original post and could see exactly where you were coming from. After Sarah Everard's murder it is comforting to hear the police have taken this seriously, those men that day really should have known better.

Well done OP, sadly too many police officers these days believe they are above the law and not held accountable to strict guidelines. Really proud of you for standing your ground!

To give that poster the benefit of the doubt I think possibly she went in too hard on her first post and then tried to save face rather than admitting she was wrong

Maybe she'll see this and apologise

I didn't see your thread at the time but having read through just your own posts now quite a number of posters owe you an apology for the nonsense they posted. You did well to stay so calm

Good outcome

I really hope the police officer on your previous thread reads this update and does some serious reflection.

So, so many people on that thread, repeating inaccurate information in such aggressively self righteous tones. Well done to you for hanging on in there.