Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


mla last won the day on August 10 2016

mla had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

180 Excellent


About mla

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Police Force
    Metropolitan Police Service

Recent Profile Visitors

768 profile views
  1. This is a hysterical statement that entirely ignores the large number of staff dedicated exclusively to functions like child protection. Those staff are not out on the road issuing tickets because they are full-time doing what we ask of them - investigating serious crime. So those cynics you allude to espousing such a thing are wholly wrong.
  2. Minor infractions of the law are ubiquitous. As said above, one, and notably police supervision, need to balance available resource against risk. If all your available resource had arrested people for being drunk in a public place and you dialled 999 to report someone having been stabbed with a knife and nobody was available, would it be justifiable? I imagine not and this is part of the nexus of discretion. The Judiciary can also apply their discretion when, for example, an unconditional discharge is handed down. "who says what the law and what isnt [sic]" is inviting a complex answer. Parliament spits out statute, it is interpreted by judges (of which differing rules of statutory interpretation are applied) and these decisions may be modified on appeal later on by other judges. Put simply, it is by no means as binary as you would suggest.
  3. Quite. But nicking someone for just being drunk is no way to make friends and influence people. Certainly at an otherwise busy custody, certainly with the otherwise law-abiding public and certainly stops you being invited to the Christmas do! So, be drunk, be merry, be safe and enjoy yourself. Don't get disorderly or so drunk you are incapable of functioning. Former is time in custody and a fine/trip to Mags and the latter (mostly) hospital. All generally come with a hangover!
  4. Indeed, somewhat objective you could say. And whom can provide expert witness evidence -- a police officer! If we decide you are drunk, you are drunk and that is the end of the matter. All the evidence you need to serve a PND to a member of bar staff or to bring into custody for such things as D&D, drunk/incapable, etc.
  5. Arguably both ultra vires. S50 PRA 2002 reads into it S1 CDA 1998 and effectively sets out that "anti-social behaviour" is threshold for A/H/D, person of reasonable firmless, a la S5 POA. This is a fairly high threshold as it would be (without looking at any cases/stare decisis/ratio) the stuff subject to ASBOs. Drinking in public is, on its own, not anti-social, per se. (Other offences may apply) Being homeless is not anti-social.
  6. I love how this scenario starts with "a patriot"! Do keep them coming as they are most amusing, if not a little bizarre, and personally I'm waiting for one that starts with "John: of the Smith family" and a nautical reference of some kind...
  7. Re Dave ... Not sure you'd even need evidence from original as Dave 2 provides the evidence. Also, even if Sam didn't want to hit Dave 2 but actually Dave 1 doctrine of transferred malice would apply. Re horse, putting side the wildly (excuse then pun) imaginative example you have given, my answer is in the negative. The expression "I could eat a horse" and variations therein is a widely used expression to describe hunger and putting to a suspect effectively "you were hungry ten years ago and did you kill that horse" would just be a pony question. I thank you!
  8. 5 parts 1 this statement is about blah and I am the victim, witness or AO to it etc 2 it will mention X, Y and Z people (full dets) 3 any significant oral admissions or really salient points 4 chronological account written in first person covering points to prove but excluding anything superfluous (which is the bit that comes both practice and a wider contextual understanding of the evidential weight of the statement being written will provide, and whether the defence would refute it, in amongst other considerations) 5 willing to attend court Bit of an art form I'm afraid. Go out in a basic car or dedicated scheduled appointment car and you'll have written a whole bunch in no time at all!
  9. That's why we interview them back in the peaceful and relaxed environment that is custody!
  10. Bit of a 'Janet and John' example, but if we are to play on these highly simplistic terms, yes, gets thrown into the car park and the big wide world. We abide by the rules! I'm guessing, if I were to run your example through, wouldn't be long before we see him again, but that's another matter entirely from the legal determination you seek in your OP.
  11. Indeed, horses for courses. My team and I generated plenty of jobs for ourselves over the years and investigated end to end. But we are a little bit different for a number of reasons and in the most, Specials cannot, not just for VCOP but in the main, due to ongoing supervision of crimes and the trouble it causes there. This is, of course, not withstanding most SCs simply do not work in this role profile but there is no shortage of those in the MPS who do carry a, albeit small, workfile. So can be and is done.
  12. My thoughts are that quitting is a strict liability offence, therefore the burden being in the defendant to rebut. However, the reality is that nobody, surely!, enforces this offence and technology seems to have advanced a reason to keep an engine running without driver for the purposes you have set out. Put simply, if this went to court, we may see new law being brought about to cater for advancement in technology. Or, we may simply see the offence of quitting being set out and proven whether or not you intended to have a warmed up cabin or not! The beauty, and the sometimes unpredictability, of the common law and the rules of statutory interpretation!* * depending on what court it is tried therein and the rules of stare decisis thereof
  13. The police is politicised as it is run by humans, all of whom have an agenda in one way or the other. And I think I can live in a world where the police overtly support the cause of LGBT+ equality, as the official Brighton and Hove Police Twitter account seems to suggest:
  14. I fear this is comparing apples with pears with your rather glib comment. Pride has a political motive whereas Remembrance Sunday does not. Sussex Police are rightly, by decorating this van, positively asserting their support to a group who still to this day suffer from criminality directed at them purely due to their sexuality etc. If you would like to learn more about the purpose of such 'Specialist Interest groups' within politics, read this article:
  15. "Think traffic, think crime" so say those in white hats! Shame nowadays there are so little traffic units about, but that's another conversation entirely ...