Pc banned from buying snack
Discussion
Well we have to uphold the law........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/3357707.stm
"Pc banned from buying snack
A hungry policeman was banned by shop staff from buying a sausage roll - under a law forbidding sale of refreshments for officers on duty.
Staff at a Co-op shop in Nettleham in Lincolnshire refused to serve Pc Dougie Brown and told him about a section of the Licensing Act which forbids the sale of alcohol or refreshments to on-duty police officers.
The act says police must have "consent of a superior officer" first.
Lincolnshire Police said the shop was right to uphold the 1964 Licensing Act but the force does encourage officers to mix in with their local communities.
The statement went on: "Constable Brown was very embarrassed at finding himself in this situation at the head of quite a substantial queue in the shop.
"We have spoken to the local Co-operative Society and are working towards resolving the apparent conflict between their needs and ours, in an amicable way."
Chief executive of the Lincoln Co-operative Society Kevin Cook said: "We feel very embarrassed about the situation but the staff followed the letter of the law, as we would expect them to do.
"The legislation is due to change anyway this year. It seems nonsensical at the moment and is very, very embarrassing."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/3357707.stm
"Pc banned from buying snack
A hungry policeman was banned by shop staff from buying a sausage roll - under a law forbidding sale of refreshments for officers on duty.
Staff at a Co-op shop in Nettleham in Lincolnshire refused to serve Pc Dougie Brown and told him about a section of the Licensing Act which forbids the sale of alcohol or refreshments to on-duty police officers.
The act says police must have "consent of a superior officer" first.
Lincolnshire Police said the shop was right to uphold the 1964 Licensing Act but the force does encourage officers to mix in with their local communities.
The statement went on: "Constable Brown was very embarrassed at finding himself in this situation at the head of quite a substantial queue in the shop.
"We have spoken to the local Co-operative Society and are working towards resolving the apparent conflict between their needs and ours, in an amicable way."
Chief executive of the Lincoln Co-operative Society Kevin Cook said: "We feel very embarrassed about the situation but the staff followed the letter of the law, as we would expect them to do.
"The legislation is due to change anyway this year. It seems nonsensical at the moment and is very, very embarrassing."
yeah, very sad. Sad that the "letter of the law" is seen to be the primary thing, and not the "spirit of the law". Does this sound at all familiar????!
I think the shop was right. Maybe the sales staff had recently been awarded points because they failed to comply with "the letter of the law" ?
Think about it carefully everyone - we all inhabit the same planet, except maybe the politicians who we can all spit on.... so don't expect nice treatment from folk if you piss them off.
Personally I think it harsh to expect officers to do long shifts without snack breaks. But it wasn't me in the shop.
C
I think the shop was right. Maybe the sales staff had recently been awarded points because they failed to comply with "the letter of the law" ?
Think about it carefully everyone - we all inhabit the same planet, except maybe the politicians who we can all spit on.... so don't expect nice treatment from folk if you piss them off.
Personally I think it harsh to expect officers to do long shifts without snack breaks. But it wasn't me in the shop.
C
No,no,no
The law of 1964 was very sensible, and it is due to unscrupulous retailers who conveniently “forgot” this law that has put us where we are today with the automated persecution of the innocent motorist.
If all retailers applied the law as it was written PC tonyrec\silverback\madant etc etc would be fit lean crim busting machines who would daring do catch the evil burglars and nasties of the world and rid this fine kingdom once and for all of all things “bad”.
Unfortunately, these self appeasing, profiteering, anarchistic shopkeepers have been feeding up our fine crime busting forces with sausage rolls, doughnuts, pasties and all manner of cholesterol laden nicies all in the name of profit!
The result being that instead of chasing after said dangerous car thief, drug baron, armed robber (it’s true it I saw it happen in the 70’s all the time on telly, you don’t see it now do you?) PC Fitfornothing instead sits in his car pointing nasty laser devices at you and sends you fines automatically – no running around whatsoever!
Those shopkeepers have a lot to answer for IMO, good on the co-op!
>> Edited by gopher on Tuesday 30th December 23:10
The law of 1964 was very sensible, and it is due to unscrupulous retailers who conveniently “forgot” this law that has put us where we are today with the automated persecution of the innocent motorist.
If all retailers applied the law as it was written PC tonyrec\silverback\madant etc etc would be fit lean crim busting machines who would daring do catch the evil burglars and nasties of the world and rid this fine kingdom once and for all of all things “bad”.
Unfortunately, these self appeasing, profiteering, anarchistic shopkeepers have been feeding up our fine crime busting forces with sausage rolls, doughnuts, pasties and all manner of cholesterol laden nicies all in the name of profit!
The result being that instead of chasing after said dangerous car thief, drug baron, armed robber (it’s true it I saw it happen in the 70’s all the time on telly, you don’t see it now do you?) PC Fitfornothing instead sits in his car pointing nasty laser devices at you and sends you fines automatically – no running around whatsoever!
Those shopkeepers have a lot to answer for IMO, good on the co-op!
>> Edited by gopher on Tuesday 30th December 23:10
Makes you wonder how an officer who is on foot patrol and then breaks for lunch is supposed to get a bite to eat. Just because an office is in uniform doesn't mean they're on duty surely?
I've often seen uniformed officers in McDonalds etc. If I worked in McDonalds I'd give them freebies etc if they cleared the place out of barry boys who use the place for larking about and causing a nuisance.
Perhaps the shopkeeper was just being an arse because they'd recently received a speeding fine or something? As discussed elsewhere in here, the general public are taking an increasingly dim view of 'the force' which is a shame really.....
I've often seen uniformed officers in McDonalds etc. If I worked in McDonalds I'd give them freebies etc if they cleared the place out of barry boys who use the place for larking about and causing a nuisance.
Perhaps the shopkeeper was just being an arse because they'd recently received a speeding fine or something? As discussed elsewhere in here, the general public are taking an increasingly dim view of 'the force' which is a shame really.....
OK then here states
[quote=police law website]It is an offence for the license holder to:
Knowingly allow a constable to remain on the premises whilst on duty, except for the purpose of the execution of his duty.
Bribe or attempt to bribe any constable.
Supply any liquor or refreshment to any constable on duty except by authority of a superior officer of the constable. [/url]
They refused to serve an officer without permission of a superior officer, so? They upheld their end of the licensing laws. If they served someone who was almost 18 they would get fined, they're upholding the law in this case. It's NOT one law for them, one law for us, so they should refuse to break the law when asked to by this officer.
[quote=police law website]It is an offence for the license holder to:
Knowingly allow a constable to remain on the premises whilst on duty, except for the purpose of the execution of his duty.
Bribe or attempt to bribe any constable.
Supply any liquor or refreshment to any constable on duty except by authority of a superior officer of the constable. [/url]
They refused to serve an officer without permission of a superior officer, so? They upheld their end of the licensing laws. If they served someone who was almost 18 they would get fined, they're upholding the law in this case. It's NOT one law for them, one law for us, so they should refuse to break the law when asked to by this officer.
Well the laws want changing then 'cos they obviously don't allow for common sense any more. The plod only wanted something to eat for god sake, not a great crime really, bit like doing 33 in a 30 but I suppose they do you for that. I think if the trust in the police force had sunk to the depths it has here but we were in an African country (just for example obviously no racialism intented - pc) then we would not be typing messages on a forum but overthrowing the current government.
gopher said:
No,no,no
The law of 1964 was very sensible, and it is due to unscrupulous retailers who conveniently “forgot” this law that has put us where we are today with the automated persecution of the innocent motorist.
If all retailers applied the law as it was written PC tonyrecsilverbackmadant etc etc would be fit lean crim busting machines who would daring do catch the evil burglars and nasties of the world and rid this fine kingdom once and for all of all things “bad”.
Unfortunately, these self appeasing, profiteering, anarchistic shopkeepers have been feeding up our fine crime busting forces with sausage rolls, doughnuts, pasties and all manner of cholesterol laden nicies all in the name of profit!
The result being that instead of chasing after said dangerous car thief, drug baron, armed robber (it’s true it I saw it happen in the 70’s all the time on telly, you don’t see it now do you?) PC Fitfornothing instead sits in his car pointing nasty laser devices at you and sends you fines automatically – no running around whatsoever!
Those shopkeepers have a lot to answer for IMO, good on the co-op!
>> Edited by gopher on Tuesday 30th December 23:10
You callin me a fat bstard?
>> Edited by silverback mike on Wednesday 31st December 09:10
zoomzoomzoom said:
Makes you wonder how an officer who is on foot patrol and then breaks for lunch is supposed to get a bite to eat. Just because an office is in uniform doesn't mean they're on duty surely?
I've often seen uniformed officers in McDonalds etc. If I worked in McDonalds I'd give them freebies etc if they cleared the place out of barry boys who use the place for larking about and causing a nuisance.
Perhaps the shopkeeper was just being an arse because they'd recently received a speeding fine or something? As discussed elsewhere in here, the general public are taking an increasingly dim view of 'the force' which is a shame really.....
IIRC, years ago (Dixon of Dock Green years ago, that is) the police uniform included a 'duty band' - the 'zebra crossing' band around the bobby's left (?) forearm, so you could see at a glance if he was on or off duty. With that on, he was on duty; with it off, he was out of uniform, off duty, and could be served in a boozer without problems. When the uniforms were re-vamped (in the Seventies I think) the duty band was withdrawn, but the licensing laws weren't updated.
There are a lot of quaint laws surrounding licensing and licensed premises; one of them being it's unlawful for a publican to allow drunkenness on his licensed premises. What else do you go there for, FFS??
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff