Public Order and the Police
Discussion
I saw a video doing the rounds on Twitter today, in which a group of Police (including ARV) managed to detain a group of miscreant youths in a stolen car.
Link here.
Quite a shocking clip given the age of the children involved; and to be clear I mean shocking that the feral little rats are up to such shenanigans - not that the Police did anything wrong. As it happens I'm pro-police and have no issues with them in general at all, nor have I ever been in any trouble of any kind (strange how one feels one almost has to quantify that to even half-criticise the police these days?).
While watching the clip it did cross my mind, however, that the street was busy (mid-morning) and I heard more F-bombs out of the police than I genuinely think I've heard all week - and I live in Liverppol!
After all, when watching TV shows like Police Interceptors or Traffic Cops etc, a suspect only has to mumble 'Oh FFS this is all I need' on a deserted street and he's told in no uncertain terms he'll be arrested for s5 if he swears 'one more time'...
Someone posted to this effect on Twitter, asking whether s5 Public Order Act didn't apply to the police? He received some rather arrogant, rude and downright offensive replies from serving officers, including being called a 'clown', a 'wet wipe' and not of the same calibre as the officers doing the swearing. Example here.
Is being of a high calibre and/or holding a gun at the time a defence/exemption under the Public Order Act? Are police exempt in general from this law during the course of their duty? Genuine question, and while I actually have no issues with this myself (I'd swear just as much) it did make me question the hypocrisy of do as I say, not as I do...
Link here.
Quite a shocking clip given the age of the children involved; and to be clear I mean shocking that the feral little rats are up to such shenanigans - not that the Police did anything wrong. As it happens I'm pro-police and have no issues with them in general at all, nor have I ever been in any trouble of any kind (strange how one feels one almost has to quantify that to even half-criticise the police these days?).
While watching the clip it did cross my mind, however, that the street was busy (mid-morning) and I heard more F-bombs out of the police than I genuinely think I've heard all week - and I live in Liverppol!
After all, when watching TV shows like Police Interceptors or Traffic Cops etc, a suspect only has to mumble 'Oh FFS this is all I need' on a deserted street and he's told in no uncertain terms he'll be arrested for s5 if he swears 'one more time'...Someone posted to this effect on Twitter, asking whether s5 Public Order Act didn't apply to the police? He received some rather arrogant, rude and downright offensive replies from serving officers, including being called a 'clown', a 'wet wipe' and not of the same calibre as the officers doing the swearing. Example here.
Is being of a high calibre and/or holding a gun at the time a defence/exemption under the Public Order Act? Are police exempt in general from this law during the course of their duty? Genuine question, and while I actually have no issues with this myself (I'd swear just as much) it did make me question the hypocrisy of do as I say, not as I do...
Edited by rainmakerraw on Sunday 29th September 15:13
I think it depends on the situation and isn't a one size fits all answer.
I've seen similar TV shows where I've thought there was no obvious need for the officers involved to be as rude or belligerent as they were.
I watched that video yesterday before it emerged they were 15 years old, which just goes to show that perhaps the "rules" have changed.
If repeated use of the word "f
king" when telling a suspect repeatedly not to move is the difference between them paying attention and not getting shot or moving then I'm fine with their choice of language.
I've seen similar TV shows where I've thought there was no obvious need for the officers involved to be as rude or belligerent as they were.
I watched that video yesterday before it emerged they were 15 years old, which just goes to show that perhaps the "rules" have changed.
If repeated use of the word "f
king" when telling a suspect repeatedly not to move is the difference between them paying attention and not getting shot or moving then I'm fine with their choice of language.I saw it. I think the kids had no desire of stopping and would have caused a lot more damage. They didn't care.
I think police could have tried "I say, do you mind awfully slowing down so we can speak to you?"
What they used probably;y was too tame for my thinking.
Sadly I fear a slap on the wrist sentence.
I think police could have tried "I say, do you mind awfully slowing down so we can speak to you?"
What they used probably;y was too tame for my thinking.
Sadly I fear a slap on the wrist sentence.
Anyone with any sort of issue with the police using the language they did in that clip needs their head examining.
After the scrotes rammed the car near the start (which I only got a few seconds further before writing this), they're lucky they're in the UK and not America, as has already been said.
That level of force is more than justified.
After the scrotes rammed the car near the start (which I only got a few seconds further before writing this), they're lucky they're in the UK and not America, as has already been said.
That level of force is more than justified.
rainmakerraw said:
I saw a video doing the rounds on Twitter today, in which a group of Police (including ARV) managed to detain a group of miscreant youths in a stolen car.
Link here.
Quite a shocking clip given the age of the children involved; and to be clear I mean shocking that the feral little rats are up to such shenanigans - not that the Police did anything wrong. As it happens I'm pro-police and have no issues with them in general at all, nor have I ever been in any trouble of any kind (strange how one feels one almost has to quantify that to even half-criticise the police these days?).
While watching the clip it did cross my mind, however, that the street was busy (mid-morning) and I heard more F-bombs out of the police than I genuinely think I've heard all week - and I live in Liverppol! After all, when watching TV shows like Police Interceptors or Traffic Cops etc, a suspect only has to mumble 'Oh FFS this is all I need' on a deserted street and he's told in no uncertain terms he'll be arrested for s5 if he swears 'one more time'...
Someone posted to this effect on Twitter, asking whether s5 Public Order Act didn't apply to the police? He received some rather arrogant, rude and downright offensive replies from serving officers, including being called a 'clown', a 'wet wipe' and not of the same calibre as the officers doing the swearing. Example here.
Is being of a high calibre and/or holding a gun at the time a defence/exemption under the Public Order Act? Are police exempt in general from this law during the course of their duty? Genuine question, and while I actually have no issues with this myself (I'd swear just as much) it did make me question the hypocrisy of do as I say, not as I do...
Langston Road, Loughton .. dead end leading into an industrial estate and amongst other things the Bank of England printing works .. so not exactly a busy high street Link here.
Quite a shocking clip given the age of the children involved; and to be clear I mean shocking that the feral little rats are up to such shenanigans - not that the Police did anything wrong. As it happens I'm pro-police and have no issues with them in general at all, nor have I ever been in any trouble of any kind (strange how one feels one almost has to quantify that to even half-criticise the police these days?).
While watching the clip it did cross my mind, however, that the street was busy (mid-morning) and I heard more F-bombs out of the police than I genuinely think I've heard all week - and I live in Liverppol!
After all, when watching TV shows like Police Interceptors or Traffic Cops etc, a suspect only has to mumble 'Oh FFS this is all I need' on a deserted street and he's told in no uncertain terms he'll be arrested for s5 if he swears 'one more time'...Someone posted to this effect on Twitter, asking whether s5 Public Order Act didn't apply to the police? He received some rather arrogant, rude and downright offensive replies from serving officers, including being called a 'clown', a 'wet wipe' and not of the same calibre as the officers doing the swearing. Example here.
Is being of a high calibre and/or holding a gun at the time a defence/exemption under the Public Order Act? Are police exempt in general from this law during the course of their duty? Genuine question, and while I actually have no issues with this myself (I'd swear just as much) it did make me question the hypocrisy of do as I say, not as I do...
Edited by rainmakerraw on Sunday 29th September 15:13
As for the Police shouting ... absolutely Control and dominate and subdue
Asking feral little f
ks using a car as a lethal weapon politely to desist in the best Queen’s English is not the way forward 
Earthdweller said:
Asking feral little fks using a car as a lethal weapon politely to desist in the best Queen’s English is not the way forward
As I said that's understandable and I'd likely say much the same myself. Let's not pretend though that the available options are binary. 'Get your fks using a car as a lethal weapon politely to desist in the best Queen’s English is not the way forward king hands up and don't fking move' or 'Oh I say old chap, do come along quietly and don't be such a devilish rapscallion' are not the only choices. One could still be very direct and forceful in delivering instructions without resorting to Anglo-Saxon. So is it illegal to swear loudly in public, or not? Reading on:Public Order Act said:
5Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F1or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F1or abusive],within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
Is 'f(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F1or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F1or abusive],within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
k' a threatening or abusive word when used as an exclamation? I'd venture not, but in which case threats to arrest MoP for saying it also hold no water? I'm just academically interested as I'm avoiding the last minute holiday packing (my wife's so much better at it than I 
).rainmakerraw said:
Is 'fk' a threatening or abusive word when used as an exclamation? I'd venture not, but in which case threats to arrest MoP for saying it also hold no water? I'm just academically interested as I'm avoiding the last minute holiday packing (my wife's so much better at it than I ).
As it’s been held that swearing at a Police officer alone is not sufficient for S5POA k' a threatening or abusive word when used as an exclamation? I'd venture not, but in which case threats to arrest MoP for saying it also hold no water? I'm just academically interested as I'm avoiding the last minute holiday packing (my wife's so much better at it than I ).The offence elements must be completed .. swearing alone is not enough
The question is .. is the behaviour reasonable in the circumstances?
That must then be looked at in conjunction with what the Police were doing and their Powers under other legislation/Common Law
Was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?
Were the verbal commands reasonable in the circumstances?
Were the verbal commands part of the lawful use of Force ?
To look at a single section of one act is rather simplistic
My view, for what it’s worth .. No offence and completely lawful
The relevant part of S5 Public Order Act is below;
This offence has the following statutory defences:
(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.
The measure of whether the "conduct was reasonable" is the effectively that of a person of reasonable firmness - ie average person.
In terms of use of force against those in the car, the "shock and awe impact of the Officers is clearly much lower than the level of the car being used as a weapon (or indeed the weapons they may have had with them) and I think it is fair to say that the average person would consider their conduct *more* than reasonable.
In any other country, the occupants of the car, juvenile or not, would stand a fair chance of being shot.
This offence has the following statutory defences:
(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.
The measure of whether the "conduct was reasonable" is the effectively that of a person of reasonable firmness - ie average person.
In terms of use of force against those in the car, the "shock and awe impact of the Officers is clearly much lower than the level of the car being used as a weapon (or indeed the weapons they may have had with them) and I think it is fair to say that the average person would consider their conduct *more* than reasonable.
In any other country, the occupants of the car, juvenile or not, would stand a fair chance of being shot.
The Police conducting a hard stop in a public place is very likely to be disturbing or alarming for an ordinary member of the public
It will happen in most cases without any warning and with a significant level of violence ( as illustrated in the clip)
It is not unreasonable that members of the public caught up in it or witnessing it might be distressed
That however does not make it an offence
The actions of the Police would be Proportionate, Lawful, appropriate and necessary to affect the arrest and mitigate/remove the risk to the public by arresting the offenders
As long as the Police were acting in accordance with their Powers and their actions could be justified .. then no offence committed
It will happen in most cases without any warning and with a significant level of violence ( as illustrated in the clip)
It is not unreasonable that members of the public caught up in it or witnessing it might be distressed
That however does not make it an offence
The actions of the Police would be Proportionate, Lawful, appropriate and necessary to affect the arrest and mitigate/remove the risk to the public by arresting the offenders
As long as the Police were acting in accordance with their Powers and their actions could be justified .. then no offence committed
https://youtu.be/-7unQWFwBx0
As an example ..
Do you think the pedestrians caught up
In this Flying Squad pavement take down might have been caused harassment, alarm or distress ?
I’d reckon so ... but it doesn’t mean the Cops committed an offence of low level public disorder
As an example ..
Do you think the pedestrians caught up
In this Flying Squad pavement take down might have been caused harassment, alarm or distress ?
I’d reckon so ... but it doesn’t mean the Cops committed an offence of low level public disorder
I didn’t read the op before watching the video, and I have to say I noticed and didn’t like the swearing. I don’t think it did anything to help, and I don’t think they should swear.
By the way the reason kids like that do what they did and wouldn’t get out the car etc is because they’ve never been made to comply with anything before in their life ie school rulez; and I don’t blame the schools.
I suspect they will be bailed and eventually get a youth offender order which will do nothing to curtail them.
By the way the reason kids like that do what they did and wouldn’t get out the car etc is because they’ve never been made to comply with anything before in their life ie school rulez; and I don’t blame the schools.
I suspect they will be bailed and eventually get a youth offender order which will do nothing to curtail them.
CoolHands said:
I didn’t read the op before watching the video, and I have to say I noticed and didn’t like the swearing. I don’t think it did anything to help, and I don’t think they should swear.
So what should the police have said and done?Bear in mind the kids were happy to ram the vehicles belonging to innocent members of the public, who were in those vehicles.
I'd like to know what you think their response should've been.
That was a hard stop. The point of it is that it’s hard, the officers take control of the situation, give orders and be dominant as a show of force in order to de-escalate and stop the offender from driving off or causing harm, if that’s not complied with the officers were clearly close to using lethal force so it was a last resort. The point is proportionality. If they’d stopped a chap driving his company Mondeo for doing 35 in a 30 like that then yes it’d be bad. This? No, it’s exactly how they should do it as the chances of serious harm happening if they’d not stopped it was so high.
GC8 said:
Im not convinced that two police officers armed with assault rifles and steel core (AP) rounds were necessary to stop a car full of street robbers.
The whole thing was a shambles, and I am glad that it had the outcome that it did. It could have been far worse.
Im assuming you knew everything about it then? Had access to all the intel at the time? The whole thing was a shambles, and I am glad that it had the outcome that it did. It could have been far worse.
Nothing wrong with police officers swearing. If the situation fits it. Would it have worked if they said 'excuse me young men, please can you get out of the car?'. Im going to say no.
GC8 said:
Im not convinced that two police officers armed with assault rifles and steel core (AP) rounds were necessary to stop a car full of street robbers.
The whole thing was a shambles, and I am glad that it had the outcome that it did. It could have been far worse.
The whole thing was a shambles, and I am glad that it had the outcome that it did. It could have been far worse.
So you'd send an unarmed local bobby to a car with teenagers armed with knives hell bent on getting away? Good job you don't work in a force control room!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff