Sign in to follow this  
george b

who says whats the law and what isnt

Recommended Posts

I'm quite a literal person generaly, certain when it comes to the law,a thing is either legal or its not and I act accordingly , I endeavour never to break the law and on the rare occasion's laziness' or unfortunate circumstances take over then I am as a law breaker am prepared to be punished. For instance I never litter, but the other day my chip wrapper was taken by the wind and I couldn't be bothered chasing it across the precinct.

 

I know that cycling on the pavement( footways) is illegal . I never do it, i know that cycling up a one way street the wrong way is quite legal, provided that I haven't cycled passed a no entry sign or a one way sign facing in my direction so I do that quite a lot.

but , Then the police completely ignore others callous law breaking on the pavement, but have a bad habit of trying to enforce a law I haven't broken. When I explain how my action is legal, they not unusually tell me to cycle on the pavement as its safer. That confuses my OCD greatly. That not only can they use their discretion to not prosicute they can actually recommend law breaking as a course of action.

that they can chose not to enforce a law in certain circumstances is ok, I think. But can discretion be all applied to not enforce a law at all ? The same piece of antiquated legislation that makes cycling on the footway illegal also makes public drunkeness illegal . The cycling law is at least occasionally enforced. The law on being drunk in public seemingly never is. The will of parliament  , was and as they haven't change it, presumably still is that being drunk in public should be punished. Yet I see drunks walking past policemen all the time and no action us taken.

so, is it ok for the police. To just refuse to enforce a law wholesale and if so how can they chose which laws to ignore and which to enforce and isn't that the job of our law makers

 

 

 

 

Edited by george b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any advice on a specific area of law is from either currently-serving UK police officers, and is offered to the best of their ability, or from members of the public who are perhaps aspiring to be serving police officers and may not hold the necessary level of knowledge to provide such assistance or by any other member who may offer their opinion. Either way such advice can only be treated as an opinion and nothing more. Members should look for the Verified Members Badge that appears on the posters name as advice from members holding this badge are verified police employees. The information is based on their own individual experiences, expertise and training. It is stressed, however, that if any information or advice found in these forums is used by any person or organisation, then the respective police officer(s) and staff can not and will not take any responsibility for any outcome in any investigation in a criminal or civil enquiry. Any advice or opinion offered is to the best of the individuals knowledge and ability based on the information you have supplied, and we will stress that we will never be knowingly misleading or untruthful in content.

[*]Please note, we do not offer advice or assistance in order to avoid penalties that you have incurred or maybe pending. [*]Such requests are deemed to be of an Operational nature and against our main Forum Rules. [*]You should always seek Legal Advice from a Qualified Solicitor in the event of any impending prosecutions or other involved legal matter.

Administration Team Police Specials

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discretion is a wonderful tool, as is being reasonable. 

For instance, If I see a father with his young daughter cycling down an empty pavement I probably wouldn't ask them to cycle on the road as it's probably safer for them on the pavement and realistically a little girl and her dad aren't gonna do much damage cycling at 2MPH.

The problems occur when the local Deliveroo guy is cycling at 30MPH down a busy main pavement on his super tricked up road bike... That's clearly dangerous and he'd be told to cycle on the road. 

You have to weigh up Pro's and Cons and Public Interest, if littering is a problem in my ward I will punish littering more severely than if it weren't.

I know officers who move on homeless people begging, I don't - infact I don't think I ever have, unless they're being aggressive I see no problem in them asking for help, people set up JustGiving pages asking for free money all the time!

Is it worth my time, is it that big of a deal, do the public care? All things to take into consideration. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, george b said:

I'm quite a literal person generaly, certain when it comes to the law,a thing is either legal or its not and I act accordingly , I endeavour never to break the law and on the rare occasion's laziness' or unfortunate circumstances take over then I am as a law breaker am prepared to be punished. For instance I never litter, but the other day my chip wrapper was taken by the wind and I couldn't be bothered chasing it across the precinct.

 

I know that cycling on the pavement( footways) is illegal . I never do it, i know that cycling up a one way street the wrong way is quite legal, provided that I haven't cycled passed a no entry sign or a one way sign facing in my direction so I do that quite a lot.

but , Then the police completely ignore others callous law breaking on the pavement, but have a bad habit of trying to enforce a law I haven't broken. When I explain how my action is legal, they not unusually tell me to cycle on the pavement as its safer. That confuses my OCD greatly. That not only can they use their discretion to not prosicute they can actually recommend law breaking as a course of action.

that they can chose not to enforce a law in certain circumstances is ok, I think. But can discretion be all applied to not enforce a law at all ? The same piece of antiquated legislation that makes cycling on the footway illegal also makes public drunkeness illegal . The cycling law is at least occasionally enforced. The law on being drunk in public seemingly never is. The will of parliament  , was and as they haven't change it, presumably still is that being drunk in public should be punished. Yet I see drunks walking past policemen all the time and no action us taken.

so, is it ok for the police. To just refuse to enforce a law wholesale and if so how can they chose which laws to ignore and which to enforce and isn't that the job of our law makers

 

 

 

 

I hope you will forgive me but your question is a good reflection of the general naivete of the general public. How many Police Officers do you think there are?

If there is only one Police Officer (not unusual) in a busy town centre with shop liftings, anti social behaviour, lost children, drunks a confused elderly person, people riding their bikes in contravention of local by-laws, dropping litter etc etc...

What do you want that Police Officer to do? It can't be all of it as there is only one officer - You prioritise. Then having done so answer me this-  Is it ok for the police to do this. -To just refuse to enforce a law wholesale and if so how can they chose which laws to ignore and which to enforce and isn't that the job of our law makers?

How did you choose? Were you right? Did you have the right to do what you did? Should you be punished?

What do you think?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Sapor62 said:

wDiscretion is a wonderful tool, as is being reasonable. 

For instance, If I see a father with his young daughter cycling down an empty pavement I probably wouldn't ask them to cycle on the road as it's probably safer for them on the pavement and realistically a little girl and her dad aren't gonna do much damage cycling at 2MPH.

The problems occur when the local Deliveroo guy is cycling at 30MPH down a busy main pavement on his super tricked up road bike... That's clearly dangerous and he'd be told to cycle on the road. 

You have to weigh up Pro's and Cons and Public Interest, if littering is a problem in my ward I will punish littering more severely than if it weren't.

I know officers who move on homeless people begging, I don't - infact I don't think I ever have, unless they're being aggressive I see no problem in them asking for help, people set up JustGiving pages asking for free money all the time!

Is it worth my time, is it that big of a deal, do the public care? All things to take into consideration. 

yep i can see all that, but the cynical might conclude that the police are taking the low hanging fruit ie using descretion to take the easier cases and ignoring more or at least as serious because they are difficult. Ie catching motorist doing 25 in 20zone easy, catching youth on mountain bike doing 25 on the pavement difficult. ,catching children picky daffodils', easy,, dealing with child exploitation rings difficult

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I've come to understand it is reasonableness.  Is it reasonable to tell a drunk dude to get in a taxi and go home?  Is it in the public interest to tie multiple officers up for hours when there is another option? Is it better to use some discretion clear the problem, and then get on to something more serious?  Ultimately a see public protection as one pillar of the job, and would far sooner be tied up with putting a violent buffoon in custody over someone who is drunk and singing that his local football team is cack.  I like a drink, and I know when I've had enough.  Levels of judgement, and I'm old enough to understand absolutes are a rare thing.  You have to make a decision based on circumstances.  I'd far sooner let a guys mates take him home for gobbing off than chuck him in a cell.  Dynamic Decision Making I think they refer to it as, you work to the situation in front of you, and you continually reassess your options. 

Edited by Beaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, george b said:

yep i can see all that, but the cynical might conclude that the police are taking the low hanging fruit ie using descretion to take the easier cases and ignoring more or at least as serious because they are difficult. Ie catching motorist doing 25 in 20zone easy, catching youth on mountain bike doing 25 on the pavement difficult. ,catching children picky daffodils', easy,, dealing with child exploitation rings difficult

 

I am well aware of the anecdotal man in the pub who likes to say all the Police do is stop people for speeding and avoid dealing with real crimes... I would much rather engage with some tangible evidence of that, rather than a presumption based on the infinite wisdom of some ignoramus in the pub embittered about his drink drive conviction.

For example the vast majority of officers on duty at any given time are not equipped for speed control in any case. Those speed control operations are usually targeted operations being enforced due to public complaints and local concerns such as proximity to a school etc.

I would suggest the vast majority of speeding offences nationally are detected by those bright yellow road side box cameras and not the Police at all.....

The cynical can make up whatever they like in an attempt to discredit the Police and try to bolster support for their biased point of view, but I'd like to see the very easily researchable evidence to back those assertions up.

Realistically the vast majority of our resources are being poured into safeguarding the vulnerable and mitigating harm and controlling risk. Speed campaigns are rare.

So...show me the evidence. Then craft me a fair critique of the Police and you will find some very open ears and a powerful willingness to improve.

Edited by HMService
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yep i can see all that, but the cynical might conclude that the police are taking the low hanging fruit ie using descretion to take the easier cases and ignoring more or at least as serious because they are difficult. Ie catching motorist doing 25 in 20zone easy, catching youth on mountain bike doing 25 on the pavement difficult. ,catching children picky daffodils', easy,, dealing with child exploitation rings difficult
 


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mla said:

 


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.

 

so what we're these dedicated officers doing in Rotherham for two decades, seemlingly not protecting children ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HMService said:

I am well aware of the anecdotal man in the pub who likes to say all the Police do is stop people for speeding and avoid dealing with real crimes... I would much rather engage with some tangible evidence of that, rather than a presumption based on the infinite wisdom of some ignoramus in the pub embittered about his drink drive conviction.

For example the vast majority of officers on duty at any given time are not equipped for speed control in any case. Those speed control operations are usually targeted operations being enforced due to public complaints and local concerns such as proximity to a school etc.

I would suggest the vast majority of speeding offences nationally are detected by those bright yellow road side box cameras and not the Police at all.....

The cynical can make up whatever they like in an attempt to discredit the Police and try to bolster support for their biased point of view, but I'd like to see the very easily researchable evidence to back those assertions up.

Realistically the vast majority of our resources are being poured into safeguarding the vulnerable and mitigating harm and controlling risk. Speed campaigns are rare.

So...show me the evidence. Then craft me a fair critique of the Police and you will find some very open ears and a powerful willingness to improve.

thats funny when i got a letter about me driving past one of those yellow boxes, it came from the police. It has Police written at the top in big letters and kept making reference to the chief constable

its not my point that the police don't deal with " real crime" they are all real. Rather they deal with easy crimes and use their discretion to ignore the difficult ones. Some are serious, but most are just minor but a lot of effort to do anything about.

Edited by george b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's put it into a reality check. None of my officers (approximately 35 have dealt with a speeding offence in the last 3 years that I have supervised them.

People who don't even have the situational awareness to momentarily slow down as they pass a 3ft X 3 ft luminous box on a 12 foot pole are apparently far too common to need actual Police officers to catch them. If they don't notice the box, there is a very real danger they won't see a careless child and those are the drivers I guess most decent people want to improve their driving.

So the speeding analogy doesn't fit- it isn't low hanging fruit, it's fruit that drops into our computer processed baskets and slices itself up nicely with no effort from us.

We have some nice support staff who send out the letters for us.

What serious offences are we ignoring and what petty offences are we needlessly prosecuting? Post the stats that demonstrate your point.

Right now it just sounds like you weren't paying attention as you passed a static camera and aren't grown up enough to be angry at yourself and what to project the blame for your behaviour onto the agency you think caught you.

But I reserve judgement- show me the statistics you feel evidence this.

Individual cases like Rotherham are largely reflective of the time- we were all racists back then remember? The criticism at that time was we were all picking on minority groups. Politics started to influence policing. Officers tried to overcome that but were shut down.... Do you remember?

In a few years time if "the low hanging fruit" argument bites when we have removed the speed controls, someone like you will argue we are responsible for the rise on road deaths.... And so the complaint cycle continues.

The only cure is evidence based policing. Show the evidence prove the point and we will change. Otherwise you are just the embittered bloke in the pub complaining the Police should have been doing something other than catching him speeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, HMService said:

Let's put it into a reality check. None of my officers (approximately 35 have dealt with a speeding offence in the last 3 years that I have supervised them.

People who don't even have the situational awareness to momentarily slow down as they pass a 3ft X 3 ft luminous box on a 12 foot pole are apparently far too common to need actual Police officers to catch them. If they don't notice the box, there is a very real danger they won't see a careless child and those are the drivers I guess most decent people want to improve their driving.

So the speeding analogy doesn't fit- it isn't low hanging fruit, it's fruit that drops into our computer processed baskets and slices itself up nicely with no effort from us.

We have some nice support staff who send out the letters for us.

What serious offences are we ignoring and what petty offences are we needlessly prosecuting? Post the stats that demonstrate your point.

Right now it just sounds like you weren't paying attention as you passed a static camera and aren't grown up enough to be angry at yourself and what to project the blame for your behaviour onto the agency you think caught you.

But I reserve judgement- show me the statistics you feel evidence this.

Individual cases like Rotherham are largely reflective of the time- we were all racists back then remember? The criticism at that time was we were all picking on minority groups. Politics started to influence policing. Officers tried to overcome that but were shut down.... Do you remember?

In a few years time if "the low hanging fruit" argument bites when we have removed the speed controls, someone like you will argue we are responsible for the rise on road deaths.... And so the complaint cycle continues.

The only cure is evidence based policing. Show the evidence prove the point and we will change. Otherwise you are just the embittered bloke in the pub complaining the Police should have been doing something other than catching him speeding.

as it turn out it wasn't me speeding but the mbike overtaking me. That you and your don't do speeder isn't the.point millions are done every year, yes low hanging fruit indeed and I've never seen a careless child on a motorway.

you seem to be sidesteping as someone else's fault that the police applied discretion to child rape on a near industrial scale. It would be interesting to view the number of speeders done in Rotherham against the number of children protected by the dedicated child protection team. Being scared of being called racist doesnt stop you prosicuting ethnic minorities for speeding , only child rape. think that's all the evidence you need that difficult issues arnt policed

Edited by george b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Police sidestepping child rape on an industrial scale.... Once again...the evidence please, and please have the fairness to distinguish between the Police and CPS. But in any case, stop with the wild accusations and show me your data, then we can proceed with some sense of fairness rather than bias and Wild assumption.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HMService said:

Police sidestepping child rape on an industrial scale.... Once again...the evidence please, and please have the fairness to distinguish between the Police and CPS. But in any case, stop with the wild accusations and show me your data, then we can proceed with some sense of fairness rather than bias and Wild assumption.

no show me your data to show the number of cases prepared by the police that were knocked back by the cps. Are you in denial about the scale of the issue in Rotherham zAND other towns that were unpoliced for decades. Do you really want evidence of that

Edited by george b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 4 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this