Issued COVID FPN by a police officer
Discussion
Graveworm said:
A court would ultimately decide in all cases. The grounds for arrest are if they reasonably suspect that an offence has been committed and they reasonable suspect that the person is guilty of the offence. They don't need belief. Then they require a necessity to arrest, one of those criteria is not being able to ascertain their name or address.
Thank you for your reply Graveworm, I'll do some more reading around right to silence, police powers etc, and I'd also be please to hear from anyone else. Notwithstanding the right to silence, I still believe that sitting on a bench for the benefit of ones health is a reasonable excuse, especially in comparison to the other activities that are intrinsically declared to be reasonable. As you say, the threshold of what is reasonable is very low. Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 4th March 11:34
In the meantime, are you sure that "The grounds for arrest are if they reasonably suspect that an offence has been committed"? I was under the impression that 'grounds' has to include some actual material evidence, e.g. a report, witness, witness by the police, etc. not just suspicion based on the whim of the constable?
monthou said:
It still might be, surely. The original charge has been appealed, that's all.
It comes down to whether the pc had reasonable cause to believe Neale had been / was committing an offence.
Given it's Wales sitting on a bench is probably enough.
That is true. We may never know, unless he sues. I think he has 7 years to do so. He'll probably wait 6 years and 11 months to do so.It comes down to whether the pc had reasonable cause to believe Neale had been / was committing an offence.
Given it's Wales sitting on a bench is probably enough.
Cam Ladash said:
Thank you for your reply Graveworm, I'll do some more reading around right to silence, police powers etc, and I'd also be please to hear from anyone else. Notwithstanding the right to silence, I still believe that sitting on a bench for the benefit of ones health is a reasonable excuse, especially in comparison to the other activities that are intrinsically declared to be reasonable. As you say, the threshold of what is reasonable is very low.
In the meantime, are you sure that "The grounds for arrest are if they reasonably suspect that an offence has been committed"? I was under the impression that 'grounds' has to include some actual material evidence, e.g. a report, witness, witness by the police, etc. not just suspicion based on the whim of the constable?
Without knowing what was said or not said to the police, or what they saw, when he was approached we will never know. Why he didn't just tell them what he was doing and avoid all the hassle is beyond me but hey ho. If I had a defence to an allegation I would mention it and not end up naked in a cell.In the meantime, are you sure that "The grounds for arrest are if they reasonably suspect that an offence has been committed"? I was under the impression that 'grounds' has to include some actual material evidence, e.g. a report, witness, witness by the police, etc. not just suspicion based on the whim of the constable?
Cam Ladash said:
Thank you for your reply Graveworm, I'll do some more reading around right to silence, police powers etc, and I'd also be please to hear from anyone else. Notwithstanding the right to silence, I still believe that sitting on a bench for the benefit of ones health is a reasonable excuse, especially in comparison to the other activities that are intrinsically declared to be reasonable. As you say, the threshold of what is reasonable is very low.
In the meantime, are you sure that "The grounds for arrest are if they reasonably suspect that an offence has been committed"? I was under the impression that 'grounds' has to include some actual material evidence, e.g. a report, witness, witness by the police, etc. not just suspicion based on the whim of the constable?
It has to be reasonably held and objective, so not on whim. But it's based on the information they have, it can include a lot of factors including things that are within the personal experience or knowledge of the individual officer. In the meantime, are you sure that "The grounds for arrest are if they reasonably suspect that an offence has been committed"? I was under the impression that 'grounds' has to include some actual material evidence, e.g. a report, witness, witness by the police, etc. not just suspicion based on the whim of the constable?
Graveworm said:
Reasonable excuse, has been around for a long time in law. For example:
If a person is out and about using a knife for their work it's a reasonable excuse and they are innocent. If they carrying a knife and they have a reasonable excuse they are still innocent. A Police officer in the first case can see what they are doing and can infer the reasonable excuse. In the second case if he asks them about the knife and they refuse to answer should the officer say well I can't be sure they don't have a reasonable excuse so I'll walk away. We now live in the ridiculous times where, being away from your home, is the same as having a knife, in terms of where the burden falls.
Great example and helps illustrate how not answering a simple question (what are you doing?) by exercising your legal right to silence can still result in a lawful detention for doing "nothing" wrong - in that it isn't always as simple as "well he hasn't said he's out stabbing so we have to leave him to his own devices with a knife".If a person is out and about using a knife for their work it's a reasonable excuse and they are innocent. If they carrying a knife and they have a reasonable excuse they are still innocent. A Police officer in the first case can see what they are doing and can infer the reasonable excuse. In the second case if he asks them about the knife and they refuse to answer should the officer say well I can't be sure they don't have a reasonable excuse so I'll walk away. We now live in the ridiculous times where, being away from your home, is the same as having a knife, in terms of where the burden falls.
Question on the same lines for all of those folks in law enforcement. Faced with a guy you suspected wasn't exercising and really wasn't helping you by telling you what he was up to, could you have been bothered with taking him in under Coronavirus act stuff or would you have left him to his own devices saying "what a weirdo"?
Pegscratch said:
I think we're all fed up of it, but some are finally starting to explain that "the police" haven't chosen to go out slapping fines on people and instead "the police" have been told to go out and do it.
Disappointing that many of you couldn't jump to that conclusion first. I guess prejudice will always show and an easy target is an easy target for lazy conclusion jumping.Pothole said:
Disappointing that many of you couldn't jump to that conclusion first. I guess prejudice will always show and an easy target is an easy target for lazy conclusion jumping.
Prejudice?For years I admired the work the police did, supported in my own way and done what I could to sow that seed positively in my children's eyes. Just lately I feel like I've been let down by them.
The only one being prejudice in this discussion is you, in assuming that because I am jaded in my view of the police that it has always been that way and it is through misconception rather than experience.
When a bellend, sorry "innocent civilian" is being awkward with the police, can an officer make the reasonable assumption they must be on drugs as any sober person would just, be reasonable.... And thus if they have reasonable assumption by their awkward behaviour that they are on drugs, then they can search them for drugs.... then when none are found and they are still being awkward, it would be reasonable to assume they are being awkward because they are hiding drugs somewhere and hence detain them and take them back to the station for a strip search and prolonged anal cavity search just to be safe?
Sounds reasonable to me!
Sounds reasonable to me!
Pegscratch said:
Prejudice?
For years I admired the work the police did, supported in my own way and done what I could to sow that seed positively in my children's eyes. Just lately I feel like I've been let down by them.
The only one being prejudice in this discussion is you, in assuming that because I am jaded in my view of the police that it has always been that way and it is through misconception rather than experience.
Yes, prejudice. Pre-judging, from Latin praejudicium, from prae ‘in advance’ + judicium ‘judgement’. Making assumptions based on a face value, probably edited and filtered view. I make no assumption that it isn't more deeply based on experience, but even if it is, that is still prejudice. We all do it. Human animals are like most, if not all, other animals in that way.For years I admired the work the police did, supported in my own way and done what I could to sow that seed positively in my children's eyes. Just lately I feel like I've been let down by them.
The only one being prejudice in this discussion is you, in assuming that because I am jaded in my view of the police that it has always been that way and it is through misconception rather than experience.
Interesting that you've taken it personally, too.
Psycho Warren said:
When a bellend, sorry "innocent civilian" is being awkward with the police, can an officer make the reasonable assumption they must be on drugs as any sober person would just, be reasonable.... And thus if they have reasonable assumption by their awkward behaviour that they are on drugs, then they can search them for drugs.... then when none are found and they are still being awkward, it would be reasonable to assume they are being awkward because they are hiding drugs somewhere and hence detain them and take them back to the station for a strip search and prolonged anal cavity search just to be safe?
Sounds reasonable to me!
Nobody looks for an excuse to do a cavity search.Sounds reasonable to me!
Pothole said:
Nobody looks for an excuse to do a cavity search.
Nobody does one at all without the authority of a Supt, unless things have changed recently. I had a man in my cells who had concealed a stolen Rolex in his anus. Supt couldn't authorise an intimate search, for stolen property so none was done.Nibbles_bits said:
I know a few bellends that need arresting just because the day ends in a 'Y'.
stewpid PACE..... always ruins things I was seeing an irish girl in Belfast a good few years back and some drunk was swearing at the cops and being a dick. He got dragged into the back of the PSNI meat wagon and got a good beating before being literally thrown out the back onto the ground with a bloodied face.
That'll teach the f
kers. lol. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff