Issued COVID FPN by a police officer
Discussion
Nibbles_bits said:
MaxFromage said:
https://twitter.com/neiljmcevoy/status/13663418297...
Have you been out on the beat again Nibbles?
Why on earth are these officers clueless time and time again? It's been national news enough times.
Well these young'uns haven't done their homework have they!!Have you been out on the beat again Nibbles?
Why on earth are these officers clueless time and time again? It's been national news enough times.
Better ask an old hand if you're not sure what one is!
Nibbles_bits said:
**IF** I was going to arrest, I'd make sure it was for an actual offence.
The Custody Sgt obviously hasn't done his homework, because he authorised the detention.
If you don't know, don't guess.......just leave well alone.
Custody Sgt is legally permitted to assume the arrest has been made lawfully. They should still be asking appropriate questions though. The Custody Sgt obviously hasn't done his homework, because he authorised the detention.
If you don't know, don't guess.......just leave well alone.
Lonely said:
Nibbles_bits said:
**IF** I was going to arrest, I'd make sure it was for an actual offence.
The Custody Sgt obviously hasn't done his homework, because he authorised the detention.
If you don't know, don't guess.......just leave well alone.
Custody Sgt is legally permitted to assume the arrest has been made lawfully. They should still be asking appropriate questions though. The Custody Sgt obviously hasn't done his homework, because he authorised the detention.
If you don't know, don't guess.......just leave well alone.
Satisfied that the arrest is lawful and the detention is necessary.
Nibbles_bits said:
Lonely said:
Nibbles_bits said:
**IF** I was going to arrest, I'd make sure it was for an actual offence.
The Custody Sgt obviously hasn't done his homework, because he authorised the detention.
If you don't know, don't guess.......just leave well alone.
Custody Sgt is legally permitted to assume the arrest has been made lawfully. They should still be asking appropriate questions though. The Custody Sgt obviously hasn't done his homework, because he authorised the detention.
If you don't know, don't guess.......just leave well alone.
Satisfied that the arrest is lawful and the detention is necessary.
Big difference in the promotion examination way............if you ever change your mind and fancy it!
MaxFromage said:
https://twitter.com/neiljmcevoy/status/13663418297...
Have you been out on the beat again Nibbles?
Why on earth are these officers clueless time and time again? It's been national news enough times.
Isn't that in Wales? I think the regs are different there. Obviously almost certainly could have found another way to deal with it though. Have you been out on the beat again Nibbles?
Why on earth are these officers clueless time and time again? It's been national news enough times.
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 1st March 20:35
Graveworm said:
MaxFromage said:
https://twitter.com/neiljmcevoy/status/13663418297...
Have you been out on the beat again Nibbles?
Why on earth are these officers clueless time and time again? It's been national news enough times.
Isn't that in Wales? I think the regs are different there. Have you been out on the beat again Nibbles?
Why on earth are these officers clueless time and time again? It's been national news enough times.
Frenchenstein said:
As far as I’m aware there have been less than 300 “fines” for China Virus rule breakers. All have not reached a court. All have not passed CPS scrutiny. Even if you do receive a “fine” take the option of a court appearance. No judge in the land will touch it. Best of luck.
There have been 60,000 Fixed penalty notices ("Fines"), many cases have reached a court and many have been convicted by a judge. You may be getting confused with the Coronavirus act, which was many times incorrectly prosecuted. (There are no FPNs for the act) The Coronavirus Regulations ("Rule breakers") are entirely different and amongst those who don't pay the FPN or are sent to court, most pass the CPS test. Indeed, where the Act is incorrectly charged, frequently the CPS substitute the correct Coronavirus offence.
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 1st March 20:50
MaxFromage said:
Electro1980 said:
So you think it’s a failing of a person if their employer does not provide them with the training they need to do their job in work time?
Eh? Nice strawman argument there.Chicken Chaser said:
blueg33 said:
Local is not in the regulations.
Any mention of distance is absent. The legislation doesn't even mention reasonable distance. Being at an outdoor location for exercise is specified as being a reasonable excuse.
The legislation is silent on distance between home and location of exercise.
Question: if one is issued with a fpn for driving 50 miles to an outdoor location for exercise, as many people have been, and one challenges the fpn in court, is it likely that the magistrates, many of whom don’t understand the law, will convict on the basis that it is not reasonable, and therefore not a reasonable excuse, to travel 50 miles for an albeit permitted activity?
johnao said:
The legislation says one must have a reasonable excuse for leaving one’s home.
Being at an outdoor location for exercise is specified as being a reasonable excuse.
The legislation is silent on distance between home and location of exercise.
Question: if one is issued with a fpn for driving 50 miles to an outdoor location for exercise, as many people have been, and one challenges the fpn in court, is it likely that the magistrates, many of whom don’t understand the law, will convict on the basis that it is not reasonable, and therefore not a reasonable excuse, to travel 50 miles for an albeit permitted activity?
NoBeing at an outdoor location for exercise is specified as being a reasonable excuse.
The legislation is silent on distance between home and location of exercise.
Question: if one is issued with a fpn for driving 50 miles to an outdoor location for exercise, as many people have been, and one challenges the fpn in court, is it likely that the magistrates, many of whom don’t understand the law, will convict on the basis that it is not reasonable, and therefore not a reasonable excuse, to travel 50 miles for an albeit permitted activity?
Graveworm said:
Isn't that in Wales? I think the regs are different there. Obviously almost certainly could have found another way to deal with it though.
Yes door to door I think. That wasn't really the point. It's riding roughshod over decades of sensible policing.Edited by Graveworm on Monday 1st March 20:35
Electro1980 said:
That’s not a straw man. It is literally the issue at hand. Officers being criticised for not knowing the law and then people claiming that they should be learning in their own time.
We you can continue to argue with the dictionary. Call me old fashioned, but if my job involved making life-changing decisions for members of the public, I'd make damn sure I knew the rules inside out. It's hardly rocket science, a few hours on google and you wouldn't be making stupid decisions. All these officers we see can't be thick, they must just be ignorant.
johnao said:
The legislation says one must have a reasonable excuse for leaving one’s home.
Being at an outdoor location for exercise is specified as being a reasonable excuse.
The legislation is silent on distance between home and location of exercise.
Question: if one is issued with a fpn for driving 50 miles to an outdoor location for exercise, as many people have been, and one challenges the fpn in court, is it likely that the magistrates, many of whom don’t understand the law, will convict on the basis that it is not reasonable, and therefore not a reasonable excuse, to travel 50 miles for an albeit permitted activity?
Travelling/driving to exercise is not a defined reasonable excuse. It's the exercise that is. Obviously one can't exercise, without travelling, and in England there is no specific restriction on distance, but being away from home, including the journey does need to constitute a reasonable excuse. Being at an outdoor location for exercise is specified as being a reasonable excuse.
The legislation is silent on distance between home and location of exercise.
Question: if one is issued with a fpn for driving 50 miles to an outdoor location for exercise, as many people have been, and one challenges the fpn in court, is it likely that the magistrates, many of whom don’t understand the law, will convict on the basis that it is not reasonable, and therefore not a reasonable excuse, to travel 50 miles for an albeit permitted activity?
The defined, explicit reasonable excuses to leave or be away from where you live are prefaced by reasonably necessary.
A court could determine if the journey was, implicitly, a reasonable excuse or whether it was none the less a reasonable excuse. If it was unconvinced then it could convict.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff