Issued COVID FPN by a police officer

[Bigends]

Pegscratch said:

Greendubber said:

If they hadn't dealt with it there would be been protests and outrage. Grenfell is a political hot potato no one wants a bit of, so 'something' needed to be done to quell the frothers

Can't disagree. Shame that it has to detract from "real jobs". There are of course instances where this plainly cannot be the case, but there surely has to come a point where someone says "the police are not here for if you get offended by something on the internet".

Problem is - if that 'being offended over the internet' turns into a serious assault or murder and the Police didnt intervene early on.
Thats exactly what used to happen with domestics - 'just ignore them - theyre always rowing with each other' - next thing you know, the wifes been murdered
Its just too risky to ignore these incidents

[Total loss]

Alucidnation said:

Yep, like investigating people on ttter for calling Pier Morgan some nasty names (not aimed at you personally).

I happened to see him on TV being interviewed this morning while I was making a coffee, you maybe referring to previous complaints he has made, I wouldn't know, but today he was talking about serious death threats made to him, his wife & son, so you think he should just laugh that off & not waste police time? A bit of name calling, yes I'd agree, but death threats?

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

Pegscratch said:

Greendubber said:

If they hadn't dealt with it there would be been protests and outrage. Grenfell is a political hot potato no one wants a bit of, so 'something' needed to be done to quell the frothers

Can't disagree. Shame that it has to detract from "real jobs". There are of course instances where this plainly cannot be the case, but there surely has to come a point where someone says "the police are not here for if you get offended by something on the internet".

Problem is - if that 'being offended over the internet' turns into a serious assault or murder and the Police didnt intervene early on.
Thats exactly what used to happen with domestics - 'just ignore them - theyre always rowing with each other' - next thing you know, the wifes been murdered
Its just too risky to ignore these incidents

Yep, good comparison. Its the way of the world now.

[Alucidnation]

Total loss said:

Alucidnation said:

Yep, like investigating people on ttter for calling Pier Morgan some nasty names (not aimed at you personally).

I happened to see him on TV being interviewed this morning while I was making a coffee, you maybe referring to previous complaints he has made, I wouldn't know, but today he was talking about serious death threats made to him, his wife & son, so you think he should just laugh that off & not waste police time? A bit of name calling, yes I'd agree, but death threats?

No i didn't see him on today (or any day as much as possible) and that is a fair comment. Totally out of order and indeed should be investigated fully.


However, the only person he has to blame is himself IMO.

[Pegscratch]

Alucidnation said:

No i didn't see him on today (or any day as much as possible) and that is a fair comment. Totally out of order and indeed should be investigated fully.


However, the only person he has to blame is himself IMO.

Not far off saying she was in a slutty dress... tread carefully there!

[NGee]

OllieJolly said:

That's the issue, I guess.
Where does it stop?
Police are key workers, no question.
Police need shopping, so home delivery driver/shop workers are key workers.
Those people need services, so any tradesman or tradesman woman, for example, is a key worker.
Trades need insurance, so any insurance worker is a key worker.
Insurance companies need IT, so any IT worker is a key worker.

On it goes. Where does it stop?
Nobody knows.

What a world we live in.

How very true - I'm a key worker - I pay tax.
If I (and several million others) didn't pay tax there would be no police or NHS

[Nibbles_bits]

NGee said:

How very true - I'm a key worker - I pay tax.
If I (and several million others) didn't pay tax there would be no police or NHS

Or public services such as the NHS, education and the welfare system, as well as investment in public projects, such as roads, rail and housing


These figures are 10yrs old but just need to be adjusted.
On a salary of £26k your taxes pay -
£1109 towards NHS
£159 towards Police and Civil defence.

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Wednesday 3rd March 15:14

[XCP]

and very grateful we pensioners are too...

[Cam Ladash]

XCP

Going back to the case of Keith Neale in Newport City Center , who was sitting on a park bench, waiting for an MOT. Police approached, not knowing he was waiting for an MOT, Neale refused to account and identify himself to a police officer, the police arrested him and issued a FPN and charged him with obstruction.

Yesterday (Tuesday)at 21:32(forum page 19), in relation to Keith Neale you said;

XCP said:

If I were him though I would give my name and contest the PCN rather than get arrested under S24 PACE.

Today page 20, in answer to Issac Hunt's question;

"Why do some people have such an issue with identifying who they are when asked by an officer. "

you said;

"It's a fair question.
The 2 options are: give name and get a ticket or don't give name, get arrested, and then get a ticket.  "

Can I ask you, the following. I'd also be pleased to hear responses from any other police or ex-person or legal person on these forums.

Question 1) Why would you feel the need, in law, to investigate a person who is sat on a bench? Sitting on a bench is not illegal under the health protection legislation.

I can see that it is true that a person needs a reasonable excuse to be outside their home. The legislation has declared many reasons for being outside your house as intrinsically (to the law) reasonable.

For example, previous listed on this forum;

- visiting a garden centre for a browse
- popping down to the off-licence
- going to browse in a DIY store to look at paint colours
- wandering around a bike shop
- going down to town to get a takeout coffee
- going to look at goldfish and rabbits in the pet shop
- going to get your car washed
- going for a walk or a bike ride (and the regulations don’t restrict where that has to be)  including with one other person from a different household.
- visit a church.
- taking a look at a show home on a new housing development because you might be thinking about moving some time in the future 
- going out to pick up the takeaway you ordered  
- taking the hedge clippings to the local dump

With these in mind, surely any normal thinking person would also have to agree that sitting on a bench is just as reasonable as any of the other reasons already declared reasonable by the law itself.

Why would a police person think it worthwhile to expend resources investigating a person sitting on a bench?

Question 2) My understanding of Section 24 of Pace is that you are required  to have "reasonable grounds" (not just suspicion) to make a lawful arrest. What grounds would you, or any police person have to have arrested Neale? He was sat on a bench, which is lawful. He declined to identify or account, which he is not obliged to do. There was no other information, Neale did not break the law, nor was there any 'reasonable grounds' to make an arrest, keeping in mind, Rice verses Connolly 1965.

I'd be grateful to hear what you, or any police and legal eagle types think. Many thanks. 

[Graveworm]

Cam Ladash said:

XCP

Going back to the case of Keith Neale in Newport City Center , who was sitting on a park bench, waiting for an MOT. Police approached, not knowing he was waiting for an MOT, Neale refused to account and identify himself to a police officer, the police arrested him and issued a FPN and charged him with obstruction.

Yesterday (Tuesday)at 21:32(forum page 19), in relation to Keith Neale you said;

XCP said:

If I were him though I would give my name and contest the PCN rather than get arrested under S24 PACE.

Today page 20, in answer to Issac Hunt's question;

"Why do some people have such an issue with identifying who they are when asked by an officer. "

you said;

"It's a fair question.
The 2 options are: give name and get a ticket or don't give name, get arrested, and then get a ticket.  "

Can I ask you, the following. I'd also be pleased to hear responses from any other police or ex-person or legal person on these forums.

Question 1) Why would you feel the need, in law, to investigate a person who is sat on a bench? Sitting on a bench is not illegal under the health protection legislation.

I can see that it is true that a person needs a reasonable excuse to be outside their home. The legislation has declared many reasons for being outside your house as intrinsically (to the law) reasonable.

For example, previous listed on this forum;

- visiting a garden centre for a browse
- popping down to the off-licence
- going to browse in a DIY store to look at paint colours
- wandering around a bike shop
- going down to town to get a takeout coffee
- going to look at goldfish and rabbits in the pet shop
- going to get your car washed
- going for a walk or a bike ride (and the regulations don’t restrict where that has to be)  including with one other person from a different household.
- visit a church.
- taking a look at a show home on a new housing development because you might be thinking about moving some time in the future 
- going out to pick up the takeaway you ordered  
- taking the hedge clippings to the local dump

With these in mind, surely any normal thinking person would also have to agree that sitting on a bench is just as reasonable as any of the other reasons already declared reasonable by the law itself.

Why would a police person think it worthwhile to expend resources investigating a person sitting on a bench?

Question 2) My understanding of Section 24 of Pace is that you are required  to have "reasonable grounds" (not just suspicion) to make a lawful arrest. What grounds would you, or any police person have to have arrested Neale? He was sat on a bench, which is lawful. He declined to identify or account, which he is not obliged to do. There was no other information, Neale did not break the law, nor was there any 'reasonable grounds' to make an arrest, keeping in mind, Rice verses Connolly 1965.

I'd be grateful to hear what you, or any police and legal eagle types think. Many thanks. 

They were not at home. Sitting on a bench is not one of the listed reasons that is a reasonable excuse, of course there are a lot of times when a reasonable excuse will exist for someone sitting on a bench. (Onus of proving a reasonable excuse, for an offence is, by default, on the person accused).

Without any other information or explanation that's well above the (Very low) bar for reasonable grounds to suspect. Doesn't mean officers have to, or even should deal with it, but that's not the same as no reasonable grounds exist.

[Bigends]

Cam Ladash said:

XCP

Going back to the case of Keith Neale in Newport City Center , who was sitting on a park bench, waiting for an MOT. Police approached, not knowing he was waiting for an MOT, Neale refused to account and identify himself to a police officer, the police arrested him and issued a FPN and charged him with obstruction.

Yesterday (Tuesday)at 21:32(forum page 19), in relation to Keith Neale you said;

XCP said:

If I were him though I would give my name and contest the PCN rather than get arrested under S24 PACE.

Today page 20, in answer to Issac Hunt's question;

"Why do some people have such an issue with identifying who they are when asked by an officer. "

you said;

"It's a fair question.
The 2 options are: give name and get a ticket or don't give name, get arrested, and then get a ticket.  "

Can I ask you, the following. I'd also be pleased to hear responses from any other police or ex-person or legal person on these forums.

Question 1) Why would you feel the need, in law, to investigate a person who is sat on a bench? Sitting on a bench is not illegal under the health protection legislation.

I can see that it is true that a person needs a reasonable excuse to be outside their home. The legislation has declared many reasons for being outside your house as intrinsically (to the law) reasonable.

For example, previous listed on this forum;

- visiting a garden centre for a browse
- popping down to the off-licence
- going to browse in a DIY store to look at paint colours
- wandering around a bike shop
- going down to town to get a takeout coffee
- going to look at goldfish and rabbits in the pet shop
- going to get your car washed
- going for a walk or a bike ride (and the regulations don’t restrict where that has to be)  including with one other person from a different household.
- visit a church.
- taking a look at a show home on a new housing development because you might be thinking about moving some time in the future 
- going out to pick up the takeaway you ordered  
- taking the hedge clippings to the local dump

With these in mind, surely any normal thinking person would also have to agree that sitting on a bench is just as reasonable as any of the other reasons already declared reasonable by the law itself.

Why would a police person think it worthwhile to expend resources investigating a person sitting on a bench?

Question 2) My understanding of Section 24 of Pace is that you are required  to have "reasonable grounds" (not just suspicion) to make a lawful arrest. What grounds would you, or any police person have to have arrested Neale? He was sat on a bench, which is lawful. He declined to identify or account, which he is not obliged to do. There was no other information, Neale did not break the law, nor was there any 'reasonable grounds' to make an arrest, keeping in mind, Rice verses Connolly 1965.

I'd be grateful to hear what you, or any police and legal eagle types think. Many thanks. 

I'm not sure where the obstruction charge came from - what was the officer being obstructed from doing? Having (apparently ) identified an offence had been committed, in the case of insufficient details being provided to allow service of summons on the 'suspect' they then have S24 PACE to fall back on, allowing them to arrest and obtain details

[Dibble]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

If he did, maybe the officer who took his details had been diligent, done her homework, looked up the legislation online and didn’t understand it/thought guidance was the law because it’s on the .gov website... [/Devil’s Advocate]

Sometimes it’s better if people don’t do stuff in their own time and get some proper input from actual training staff...

I’m not sure what the provisions in my Force are for covid training. I meant to ask when I was in the office today, but by the time I’d got in I’d forgotten about it (I’m on restricted/recuperative duties at the moment, so can’t do anything public facing and anyway, in my role, I’d be extremely unlikely to be dishing FPNs out, Covid or otherwise).

[MaxFromage]

As if by magic I had my first direct interaction with a PCSO regarding the COVID regs today.

After a busy day of work, I popped to the local pet store as I needed to get some essential items for my fish tank. Close to the door the PCSO was lurking and being the nice chap I am, we exchanged pleasantries. Then the question- 'What are you doing here today?' me sideways, 'What do you think' was what I debated saying, but instead went into significant detail on the Zebra snails I needed to purchase to help clean the tank. Childish I know, but it's that or being one step closer to reenacting Falling Down.

[scottyp123]

I had a conversation with a mate along these lines today and his reasoning left me bewildered to say the least. I explained the difference between the guidelines and the legislation and he fully understood what I was on about. He confirmed that he knew it wasn't against the law to travel any distance for a legitimate reason like exercise but he was adamant that people deserved to get a FPN if they did travel when the police told them not to because they were clearly taking the piss.

He became quite shouty as people often do when they realise they are talking ste so I didn't push it too much but what drives people to this sort of reasoning? What hope is there for the future when there are people like this about.

Imagine if police chiefs decided that 70mph was too fast for a motorway and said anyone doing more than 60 will be issued with a FPN, (Brunstrum of the traffic Taliban would have certainly said this if he could get away with it). Do people deserve a FPN for taking the piss in these cases, the mind boggles.

Edit : is the answer simply that the majority of the public have one less brain cell than an amoeba and there is nothing more to it?

Edited by scottyp123 on Wednesday 3rd March 22:35

[XCP]

Bigends said:

I'm not sure where the obstruction charge came from - what was the officer being obstructed from doing? Having (apparently ) identified an offence had been committed, in the case of insufficient details being provided to allow service of summons on the 'suspect' they then have S24 PACE to fall back on, allowing them to arrest and obtain details

Nor am I. Seems an attempt to gild the lily was made and backfired. You have to question the charging decision. It smacks of him being a PITA in custody and someone decided to throw the book at him. I thought those days were over.

[Pegscratch]

XCP said:

Nor am I. Seems an attempt to gild the lily was made and backfired. You have to question the charging decision. It smacks of him being a PITA in custody and someone decided to throw the book at him. I thought those days were over.

It is at least satisfying to know that when such officers attempt to "make an example of someone" the courts are ready to push back. My concern however is the impact that would have on an individual and what little impact it has on the officers, potentially.

All conjecture without knowing the full ins and outs though, and as much as I love to watch an asshole get his just desserts we only know it wasn't fair to pursue that charge, we don't know that he wasn't still being a prick in custody.

[Psycho Warren]

MaxFromage said:

being one step closer to reenacting Falling Down.

Nothing wrong with falling down, except the end when he might end up killing his kid and ex wife.

[XCP]

I think a strip search was mentioned. That tends to suggest little in the way of cooperation. I wonder how his ID was obtained. Perhaps he wanted a solicitor.

[Pegscratch]

XCP said:

I think a strip search was mentioned. That tends to suggest little in the way of cooperation. I wonder how his ID was obtained. Perhaps he wanted a solicitor.

Are we really living in a country where doing nothing illegal and merely not telling the police who you are and how you're doing nothing illegal gets you strip searched?

[Pegscratch]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm sure there is.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Then why was he arrested under COVID regulations, then charged with obstructing an officer?

anonymous said:

[redacted]

To an extent, I agree - but at the same time unless the police truly have something they suspect you of then surely the answer is to walk off thinking "what a tt".

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not everybody who is uncomfortable with the prospect of having barely trained (by the people in here's own admission) folk being able to walk up and demand they explain who they are and why they are where they are.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That's alright then, stop and detain everyone just to make sure they're not the Yorkshire Ripper.