Political censorship by old Bill.

[Pothole]

meatballs said:

Pothole said:

If mini driver really thought he was not doing anything wrong by driving around with bks on his car he should have stood up and defended his actions, not meekly complied then whined about it afterwards. I think.

Edited by Pothole on Wednesday 27th November 12:59

Standing up worked well for milkround...

Better to comply and complain afterwards than risk arrest, or the officer not liking your tone and finding another issue to screw you over with.

It worked OK for me some years ago when a young PC pulled me for riding along the hatched area on the Leicester ring road (which isn't really a ring, but still). Thanks to a thread on here I'd looked up the Highway Code rule about it, so we debated the word 'necessary' for a while until I decided I'd be late for work if I stood there any longer, pointed out his car was causing a lot of delay and annoyance to a lot of people, promised to be very, very careful on my powerful, dangerous motorcycle and rode away.

I seriously don't, think this story would even have cropped up on here had it not been for the political aspect and it certainly wouldn't have made the news. Few people seem to be able to step away from that and judge the muppet behaviour on its merits, of which there are precious few, imho. The guy thought he was being clever and funny, the PC didn't agree and pulled him to tell him so, driver agreed and removed the offending words. Move along, nothing to see hear...

[Red 4]

Pothole said:

So why your use of the word "really"?

Sorry, you've lost me there ...

I haven't used the word "really".

Are you confusing me with another poster ?

The legislation uses the word " likely".

[meatballs]

Pothole said:

I seriously don't, think this story would even have cropped up on here had it not been for the political aspect

Nothing gets past you!

[Bigends]

Red 4 said:

Pothole said:

Bigends said:

Pothole said:

otolith said:

No, I expect the public generally to obey the instructions of police officers. I expect those police officers to be aware of the legality of their demands. If those demands turn out to not to have been lawful, I expect the complaint from the member of the public to be acted upon.

Section 5 makes it an offence to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour” or to display “any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting” within the hearing or sight of a person “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”.

I reckon it would be very easy to find a number of people on most streets in England and Wales who would be distressed by the word the driver was asked to remove. My mother in law would be, for sure.

alarm, means a frightened anticipation of
danger and; distress, means to cause trouble, pain, anguish or hardship. Would the wording on the side of the car really cause this?

Neither you nor I can tell what might be distressing to another. We can make a judgement, though, as the officer did. If mini driver really thought he was not doing anything wrong by driving around with bks on his car he should have stood up and defended his actions, not meekly complied then whined about it afterwards. I think.


ETA: For example, I'm happy with "the C word" and often sprinkle it liberally in conversation with male friends. My sister, who has had virtually the same upbringing as me, obvs, visibly winces when she hears it. One man's meat is another's vegan sausage, innit?

Edited by Pothole on Wednesday 27th November 12:59

Pothole - it's the notional reasonable person test that applies to whether someone would be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

Hence the use of the word "likely".

I doubt that the wording would have caused much more than a bit of tutting, eye rolling and head shaking by those reading it - hardly genuine alarm and distress.

[Pothole]

Red 4 said:

Pothole said:

So why your use of the word "really"?

Sorry, you've lost me there ...

I haven't used the word "really".

Are you confusing me with another poster ?

The legislation uses the word " likely".

Apols. Too many people jumping in on the conversation. The post I answered before you replied asked if someone would really be alarmed/distressed.

[Pothole]

Bigends said:

I doubt that the wording would have caused much more than a bit of tutting, eye rolling and head shaking by those reading it - hardly genuine alarm and distress.

That's your judgement. Had you been the officer in question you'd have acted differently, perhaps. That officer didn't. He made a judgement call. At the time. At the scene. Neither of us was there.

[irocfan]

Bigends said:

I doubt that the wording would have caused much more than a bit of tutting, eye rolling and head shaking by those reading it - hardly genuine alarm and distress.

well it would likely have upset my (remain voting) mother, my father would have likely thought that the guy was a complete bellend. It is entirely possibly I'd have been giving him the coffee beans whilst going past

[Red 4]

Pothole said:

Red 4 said:

Pothole said:

So why your use of the word "really"?

Sorry, you've lost me there ...

I haven't used the word "really".

Are you confusing me with another poster ?

The legislation uses the word " likely".

Apols. Too many people jumping in on the conversation. The post I answered before you replied asked if someone would really be alarmed/distressed.

No probs Pothole.

It's whether the notional personal of reasonable firmness present at the scene would likely be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

As bigends says - I don't think the words written on the car would suffice for a sec.5.

[otolith]

If the bar is to be set so low, I would like to register the distress I am caused by apostrophe abuse by grocers.

[Graveworm]

Red 4 said:

Pothole - it's the notional reasonable person test that applies to whether someone would be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

Hence the use of the word "likely".

It isn't. There needs to be evidence a person was likely to suffer so there is no need to show anyone actually suffered.
But there is a need to show that a person was present and THAT PERSON was likely to be affected as required.
The case law (Harvey) does allow for the possibility that some things may be so serious that, if anyone was present, then the offence would be made out. But most behaviour needs evidence that the specific person(s) were likely it cannot be inferred. E.g if the only people present are Police then the likelyhood falls as opposed to a school party etc. (Well some schools).

[Red 4]

Graveworm said:

Red 4 said:

Pothole - it's the notional reasonable person test that applies to whether someone would be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

Hence the use of the word "likely".

It isn't. There needs to be evidence a person was likely to suffer so there is no need to show anyone actually suffered.
But there is a need to show that a person was present and THAT PERSON was likely to be affected as required.
The case law (Harvey) does allow for the possibility that some things may be so serious that, if anyone was present, then the offence would be made OUT. But most behaviour needs evidence that the specific person(s) were likely it cannot be inferred. E.g if the only people present are Police then the likelyhood falls as opposed to a school party etc. (Well some schools).

Er, yes.

I'm saying what you are saying.

Try reading my posts.

[Bigends]

Graveworm said:

Red 4 said:

Pothole - it's the notional reasonable person test that applies to whether someone would be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

Hence the use of the word "likely".

It isn't. There needs to be evidence a person was likely to suffer so there is no need to show anyone actually suffered.
But there is a need to show that a person was present and THAT PERSON was likely to be affected as required.
The case law (Harvey) does allow for the possibility that some things may be so serious that, if anyone was present, then the offence would be made out. But most behaviour needs evidence that the specific person(s) were likely it cannot be inferred. E.g if the only people present are Police then the likelyhood falls as opposed to a school party etc. (Well some schools).

As per the above - I used to review all PND;s issued for section 5 to ensure the points to prove the offence were made out. I'd occasionally get tickets issued by officers to drivers who'd got abusive towards them during the course of a stop. On a number of occasions, the stops were in the wee small hours and away from residential areas on dual carriageways or town centre ring roads - the officers were the only ones present and no others were likely to affected so tickets and crime reports were both cancelled.

[Graveworm]

Red 4 said:

Er, yes.

I'm saying what you are saying.

Try reading my posts.

I did and quoted it. You said that it's the "notional reasonable person test that applies to whether someone would be caused harassment, alarm or distress" it isn't. You have even changed that now to person of reasonable firmness which is, a much higher bar, used for affray and violent disorder.
It's the actual person who is present, they may be particularly robust (Police officer) or particularly sensitive. Indeed best practice (Again Harvey) is that a witness gives evidence of being distressed if they do (Providing the court accept that) then that limb of the offence is made out.

Saying that a reasonable person wouldn't have been affected, wouldn't negate that - although it could help with the statutory defence. The police warning, re behaviour, is the best evidence to stop that, even though the power of arrest has gone.

[Red 4]

Graveworm said:

I did and quoted it. You said that it's the "notional reasonable person test that applies to whether someone would be caused harassment, alarm or distress" it isn't. You have even changed that now to person of reasonable firmness which is, a much higher bar, used for affray and violent disorder.
It's the actual person who is present, they may be particularly robust (Police officer) or particularly sensitive. Indeed best practice (Again Harvey) is that a witness gives evidence of being distressed if they do (Providing the court accept that) then that limb of the offence is made out.

Saying that a reasonable person wouldn't have been affected, wouldn't negate that - although it could help with the statutory defence. The police warning, re behaviour, is the best evidence to stop that, even though the power of arrest has gone.

Ah. Gotcha.

So what you are saying is that on an average Saturday night drunkfest the officer needs to look around him and note exactly who is present, get a handle on how sensitive those present are, conduct individual psychological assessments and then decide if those present will likely be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

I would suggest that most officers use their judgement as to what is reasonable and what is not.

I appreciate the case law - I don't see it as particularly practical in the vast majority of cases though.

[XCP]

Reminds me of the time I arrested a pervert who was masturbating a horse in a field. Only him, me and the farmer present. Charged s5 POA. Found not guilty as there was no-one to be alarmed etc.

[Pegscratch]

Red 4 said:

Ah. Gotcha.

So what you are saying is that on an average Saturday night drunkfest the officer needs to look around him and note exactly who is present, get a handle on how sensitive those present are, conduct individual psychological assessments and then decide if those present will likely be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

I would suggest that most officers use their judgement as to what is reasonable and what is not.

I appreciate the case law - I don't see it as particularly practical in the vast majority of cases though.

I think it's the likelihood of their presence that's being highlighted. Tolerated behaviour at 9am in a town centre and tolerated behaviour at 11pm in a town centre differs hugely. This obviously becomes very much overruled if someone IS present and IS affected by said behaviour, even if it's an instance of a family walking back to their car after a late showing of something Disney on Ice being alarmed by a drunken bloke muttering obscenities at 9pm.

[XCP]

I thought there was always a party of old dears making their way home in such circumstances. ...

[Peter3442]

Bellend: that's in the same anatomical direction, but doesn't seem to cause a problem, not even to the PistonHead censor machine. Why?

[Etypephil]

meatballs said:

Standing up worked well for milkround...

Better to comply and complain afterwards than risk arrest, or the officer not liking your tone and finding another issue to screw you over with.

This is why in the original post I stated that the cop should be fired and prosecuted; to set an example to, what I trust, is the minority who believe that their word is law, and that they must be obeyed without question.

[meatballs]

XCP said:

Reminds me of the time I arrested a pervert who was masturbating a horse in a field. Only him, me and the farmer present. Charged s5 POA. Found not guilty as there was no-one to be alarmed etc.

Was their a happy ending to this?

(Sorry)