Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Police stripogram arrested again


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Morse

Morse

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • 5,051 posts

Posted 29 June 2008 - 06:42 PM

Beeb


A stripogram in a police uniform, who was cleared by a sheriff of having an offensive weapon in a public place, was arrested again on Saturday.

Stuart Kennedy, 24, who is known as Sergeant Eros, was detained in Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire.

It is thought the student was charged with obstructing a police officer.

Previous charges were dropped when appeal judges backed a sheriff's ruling that stripogram work amounted to a reasonable excuse to carry a truncheon.

Mr Kennedy, from Aberdeen, was originally questioned and later charged by Grampian Police after performing at a bar in the city last year.

Legal loophole

He went on trial at Aberdeen Sheriff Court accused of carrying two batons and a spray without lawful authority, but was cleared.

The Crown Office then appealed against the ruling.

Prosecutors argued that if the sheriff's ruling went unchallenged it could create a legal loophole for carrying weapons.

In May, just a month after the Justiciary Appeal Court in Edinburgh backed the sheriff's decision to clear Mr Kennedy, he was arrested again in Aberdeen for breaching the peace.

Mr Kennedy is expected to appear in court in Peterhead on Monday over the latest charge.

#2 Future_Cop

Future_Cop

    Regular User

  • Members
  • 732 posts

Posted 29 June 2008 - 06:51 PM

:prone:

Wonder how long this one will be rolled out for.

FC :D

#3 Iain R

Iain R

    On My Way

  • Members
  • 457 posts

Posted 29 June 2008 - 08:07 PM

To be honest, as far as I'm concerned, it's the ones who keep clearing him who want locking up. DRESSING UP AS A COP IS NOT LAWFUL EXCUSE TO CARRY THREE OFFENSIVE WEAPONS (for a start it's highly innaccurate, who carries two batons?) In that case I demand to be allowed to dress up in WWII battledress and walk down Sauchiehall St with an SMLE and fixed sword bayonet, hell, I'll call myself Corporal Codpiece if it pleases the court...

Sorry, rant over.

#4 Burnie

Burnie

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • 5,288 posts

Posted 30 June 2008 - 10:37 AM

Note though this is not about the fact he is a strippogram - but he is being charged with Obstructing a Police Officer

#5 Midsman1

Midsman1

    Highly Experienced

  • Members
  • 3,125 posts

Posted 30 June 2008 - 11:40 AM

To be honest, as far as I'm concerned, it's the ones who keep clearing him who want locking up. DRESSING UP AS A COP IS NOT LAWFUL EXCUSE TO CARRY THREE OFFENSIVE WEAPONS (for a start it's highly innaccurate, who carries two batons?) In that case I demand to be allowed to dress up in WWII battledress and walk down Sauchiehall St with an SMLE and fixed sword bayonet, hell, I'll call myself Corporal Codpiece if it pleases the court...

Sorry, rant over.



LMAO Corporal Codpiece, i nearly spat coffee across my desk then! :prone:

#6 Giraffe

Giraffe

    -

  • No Longer Here
  • 16,571 posts

Posted 30 June 2008 - 12:00 PM

Note though this is not about the fact he is a strippogram - but he is being charged with Obstructing a Police Officer


That's what I was thinking. For all we know it may have been in some other non-stripping capacity that he was nicked this time...

#7 Fry

Fry

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • 10,241 posts

Posted 30 June 2008 - 12:52 PM

That's what I was thinking. For all we know it may have been in some other non-stripping capacity that he was nicked this time...

True, but there is beginning to look a bit odd repeatedly arresting this gent.

#8 matt_w

matt_w

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • 6,427 posts

Posted 30 June 2008 - 02:23 PM

To be honest, as far as I'm concerned, it's the ones who keep clearing him who want locking up. DRESSING UP AS A COP IS NOT LAWFUL EXCUSE TO CARRY THREE OFFENSIVE WEAPONS (for a start it's highly innaccurate, who carries two batons?) In that case I demand to be allowed to dress up in WWII battledress and walk down Sauchiehall St with an SMLE and fixed sword bayonet, hell, I'll call myself Corporal Codpiece if it pleases the court...

Sorry, rant over.



I would just like to point out that he didn't have three offensive weapons at all.

Two batons - the courts ruled that he had a reasonable excuse. A weapon carried in public is only an 'offensive' weapon if the defendant has no lawful authority or a reasonable excuse. Case law had already established that fancy dress and theatrical costumes did give the carrier a reasonable excuse.

The spray-the crown offered no evidence to the courts as to what the spray actually was. Even the first court ruled that the Crown could not call it an offensive weapon without first offering some evidence as to what it actually contained. For all we know it was a completely empty canister that just happened to look like a CS can. (Had it contained CS I am certain the Crown would have charged him under the Firearms Act and told the Court exactly what it contained, dont you?)

This latest charge doesnt seem to relate to anything he was carrying at the time anyway. Do we even know that he was working at the time he was arrested??

#9 Burnie

Burnie

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • 5,288 posts

Posted 30 June 2008 - 03:17 PM

He's been arrested 3 times (that I am aware of)

Once for his police costume
Once for his Army uniform
and now once for Obstructing a police officer

Edited by Burnie, 30 June 2008 - 03:18 PM.


#10 N1kki

N1kki

    Highly Experienced

  • Members
  • 3,456 posts

Posted 30 June 2008 - 03:46 PM

oh dear :prone:

#11 specialteacher

specialteacher

    Experienced

  • Excluded
  • 1,511 posts

Posted 30 June 2008 - 07:04 PM

True, but there is beginning to look a bit odd repeatedly arresting this gent.


what the saame way repeatedly arresting any other law breaking member of society is?

I would just like to point out that he didn't have three offensive weapons at all.


by the looks of him he doesnt even have one 'offensive weapon'

:prone:

#12 RedCap

RedCap

    Always Here

  • Members
  • 1,156 posts

Posted 30 June 2008 - 08:46 PM

what the saame way repeatedly arresting any other law breaking member of society is?

:prone:



Apparently, even if you don't like it, the courts have decided he is not a "law breaking member of society".

#13 Braggdaddy

Braggdaddy

    Experienced

  • Lifetime Power Users+
  • 1,608 posts

Posted 01 July 2008 - 08:03 AM

Apparently, even if you don't like it, the courts have decided he is not a "law breaking member of society".


Maybe not for the impersonation bit but the police obstruction is still on going!

#14 Gazza

Gazza

    Always Here

  • Members
  • 1,339 posts

Posted 01 July 2008 - 08:51 AM

'Police’ stripper accused of using flashing light on car

man on bail after denying charges

By Jamie Buchan

Published: 01/07/2008

A STRIPPER who dresses as a police officer for his stage act appeared in court yesterday accused of using a flashing light on his car to pull over motorists.

Stuart Kennedy was arrested by the real police at the weekend and spent two nights in a cell.

The 25-year-old was charged with having a flashing beacon installed in the vehicle he was driving and using it to stop driver James Buchan in Meethill Road, Peterhead, on Saturday night.

He faces an alternative charge of conducting himself in a disorderly manner, stopping Mr Buchan and speaking into a hand-held microphone in his car, causing a breach of the peace.

Kennedy, of Flat E, 38 Don Street, Aberdeen, has also been charged with a similar alleged offence on the A90 Aberdeen-Peterhead road, near Blackdog. He is alleged to have stopped motorist Jamie Lawrie using a flashing light in his car.

An alternative charge alleges Kennedy used the light to portray his vehicle as an unmarked police car, committing a breach of the peace.

It is also alleged Kennedy had with him a police-style outfit and accessories without “a satisfactory explanation”.

According to court papers, he was in possession of black trousers, white shirt with black epaulettes, black tie, black body armour vest, police hat, utility belt, two batons, handcuffs and a radio with microphone attachment.

Kennedy denied all five charges against him at yesterday’s brief hearing at Peterhead Sheriff Court. He was freed on bail and the case will call again later this year.

As part of his bail conditions, he was banned from driving to and from venues wearing his police uniform.

He was also ordered not to attach any strobe or flashing lights to any vehicle he uses.

Kennedy was represented by Peterhead solicitor John Adam during yesterday’s appearance before Sheriff James Hendry.

Source http://www.pressandj...cle.aspx/716683


#15 matt_w

matt_w

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • 6,427 posts

Posted 01 July 2008 - 09:06 AM

Oh dear, it just gets stranger.

I wonder who has actually witnessed him stopping the motorist. Has the motorist made a compliant after the event or was he spotted by a passing police patrol during the incident I wonder?

#16 Mr Unknown

Mr Unknown

    On My Way

  • Members
  • 395 posts

Posted 01 July 2008 - 09:28 AM

In light of this newspaper article, it seems to me as if he likes playing at being police, and the stripper is a way of allowing him to legally act out his fantasy.

I wonder how they've got a BoP out of using a light to portray his vehicle as a police car, I'd have thought it'd be offences under RTA or impersonating a police officer.

#17 Burnie

Burnie

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • 5,288 posts

Posted 01 July 2008 - 10:43 AM

It's scotland - everything is a BoP - you should know that :D :) :D :D :prone:

#18 matt_w

matt_w

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • 6,427 posts

Posted 01 July 2008 - 12:53 PM

In light of this newspaper article, it seems to me as if he likes playing at being police, and the stripper is a way of allowing him to legally act out his fantasy.

I wonder how they've got a BoP out of using a light to portray his vehicle as a police car, I'd have thought it'd be offences under RTA or impersonating a police officer.

I have in fact spoken to this chap in person on the phone so I will reserve judgement on whether he is acting out some kind of fantasy, he certainly did not come across as that type at all.

I will be very interested to see what comes out in the wash though.

#19 Fry

Fry

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • 10,241 posts

Posted 01 July 2008 - 04:31 PM

what the saame way repeatedly arresting any other law breaking member of society is?


Well, if we was breaking the law that would be fine, but so far he's been put before the courts and found not guilty.

That said, reading the latest article, well ... :prone: strange one.

#20 Morse

Morse

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • 5,051 posts

Posted 01 July 2008 - 05:20 PM

I would just like to point out that he didn't have three offensive weapons at all.

Two batons - the courts ruled that he had a reasonable excuse. A weapon carried in public is only an 'offensive' weapon if the defendant has no lawful authority or a reasonable excuse. Case law had already established that fancy dress and theatrical costumes did give the carrier a reasonable excuse.


Its hard to comprehend why a court believes that its acceptable to walk about with 2 bona fide batons in a town centre on a weekend - stripogram or not.

Any replica would do the job for the purposes of his employment.

Interesting that he was held custody for court as opposed to being released for report!

#21 Queeg

Queeg

    Regular User

  • Members
  • 507 posts

Posted 01 July 2008 - 05:58 PM

Its hard to comprehend why a court believes that its acceptable to walk about with 2 bona fide batons in a town centre on a weekend - stripogram or not.

Any replica would do the job for the purposes of his employment.

Interesting that he was held custody for court as opposed to being released for report!


He was on bail for previous offences.

#22 matt_w

matt_w

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • 6,427 posts

Posted 02 July 2008 - 10:18 AM

Its hard to comprehend why a court believes that its acceptable to walk about with 2 bona fide batons in a town centre on a weekend - stripogram or not.

Any replica would do the job for the purposes of his employment.

Interesting that he was held custody for court as opposed to being released for report!


If there is no statutory requirement to only use replicas as part of a stripogram performance then you can hardly expect the court to find him guilty of not using a replica weapon!

Perhaps the copper who carried his issue truncheon as part of a fancy dress costume set the precedent ?

#23 Cromwell

Cromwell

    Old Timer

  • Members
  • 3,546 posts

Posted 04 July 2008 - 11:09 PM

No offence to our Scottish members, but I hope the Sheriff's rulings have zero weight south of the border. I find it astounding that being a stripogram is legally sufficient to be able to carry a weapon which is offensive per se and whose unlicensed purchase or sale is illegal (under English law anyway). Having a baton in a play would be bad enough, but on the street is ridiculous. Surely a replica would suffice anyway? Or did the Sheriff in his wisdom not consider this?

Personally I don't understand why he wasn't convicted of impersonating a police officer in the first place. (Admittedly I cannot remember whether this was because he was found not guilty or because no charges were brought). Given that members of the public will generally obey the instructions of someone who appears to be a police officer and given that someone in need will expect someone who appears to be a police officer will help them, I think it's unacceptable for people who appear to be police officers not to be police officers. The problem has come about after Mr Buchan stopped for the stripper who used lights to stop him. Mr Buchan has been interrupted from going about his business by this stripper and Mr Buchan shouldn't have had to put up with this. The Scottish prosecution service should charge the stripper with impersonating a police officer and should appeal as high as they need to go in order to ensure that his carrying of batons is made illegal again. While they're at it they should slap an ASBO on him not to impersonate police; harrass, alarm or distress anyone, carrying weapons in public or being a muppet. If ASBOs don't exist in Scotland they should create them and call them SASBOs.

In short: if he comes to Oxfordshire and meets me, Heaven help him.

#24 GMA79

GMA79

    Old Timer

  • Members
  • 3,847 posts

Posted 05 July 2008 - 07:45 PM

No offence to our Scottish members, but I hope the Sheriff's rulings have zero weight south of the border. I find it astounding that being a stripogram is legally sufficient to be able to carry a weapon which is offensive per se and whose unlicensed purchase or sale is illegal (under English law anyway). Having a baton in a play would be bad enough, but on the street is ridiculous. Surely a replica would suffice anyway? Or did the Sheriff in his wisdom not consider this?


There was already English case law (Houghton v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (1987)) that a truncheon as part of a performance is a reasonble excuse for carrying one in public, Amusingly the case involved a former police officer who took his truncheon to a fancy dress party.

This is the transcript of the case, which explains the Houghton case:

http://www.scotcourt...008HCJAC25.html

From that document:

Having given this matter careful consideration, we have come to the conclusion that we can detect no error in the decision reached by the sheriff at first instance. Subject only to the fact that the present case involved the wearing of police uniform and the carrying of batons for the purposes of a professional stripogram performance in licensed premises, while the English case of Houghton involved the wearing of similar attire for the purposes of a fancy dress party, we do not consider that any distinction can be drawn between the two cases; and, essentially for the same reasons as those given by May L.J. in Houghton, we consider that the reason for the respondent having the batons on his person was to add verisimilitude to his fancy dress, and that this amounted to a reasonable excuse for having them with him at the time in question. We say "at the time in question" because, in our view, the present case can be distinguished from the case of McCulloch v. Normand which has been referred to earlier. In that case the appellant was seen with a sword at his belt on the day after he had taken part in a mock battle. Had he been seen by the police on the previous day, when he was just about to enter the site where the battle was to take place, it is at least possible that his intended participation in that event would have been seen as amounting to a reasonable excuse: but that consideration had no continuing significance by the following day. In the present case, by contrast, the respondent was seen by the police officers only minutes before he was scheduled to give his performance.


Looking at that text, regardless of the allegation of the blue light issue and stopping people, it's possible that he might come unstuck if he has left these items in his car the whole time because it would reduce his chances of claiming a reasonable excuse.

Unless the people stopped were well known to him and it was some kind of joke (yes, I know it would still have been illegal), my view of Kennedy would be altered in that I would think he has some kind of "issue" or fixation. The use of "Military Police" on that army uniform is silly, I expect it was on the uniform when it was sold, but he could have removed/covered it without spoiling the look, indeed IMO the uniform would have looked more authentic without it.

Edited by g_attrill, 05 July 2008 - 07:49 PM.


#25 Lior

Lior

    Highly Experienced

  • Power Users
  • 3,251 posts

Posted 06 July 2008 - 09:22 AM

Thank God a boner in public is not considered an offensive weapon, unless you're a stripper.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users