Enemy 45 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 This officer claims that the man in question looked at him and gave him the 'finger'. It's an arrestable offence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act according to the officer. The officer then proceeds to aggressively walk towards a bystander who was filming the incident and grabs his phone for no reason. Notice how the arresting officer doesn't state which section of PACE he is enforcing. Also, the arrested man was apparently free to go after sitting in the van for an hour. Pointless. Do officers lack so much discretion that they are willing to arrest someone for something so petty (if it even happened) or are some just not kept busy enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot 703 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) This officer claims that the man in question looked at him and gave him the 'finger'. It's an arrestable offence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act according to the officer. The officer then proceeds to aggressively walk towards a bystander who was filming the incident and grabs his phone for no reason. Notice how the arresting officer doesn't state which section of PACE he is enforcing. Also, the arrested man was apparently free to go after sitting in the van for an hour. Pointless. Do officers lack so much discretion that they are willing to arrest someone for something so petty (if it even happened) or are some just not kept busy enough? If he wasn't giving me his name and address, I'd arrest him too. When I arrest him I wouldn't recite an act (in Scotland it would be under common law), i'd say you're under arrest because you failed to supply your details. I'd place my hands on them when doing so. It's not petty, we're simply not going to allow people to walk off after committing an offence because they fail to give their details. Dream on and find somewhere else to spout your anti police rhetoric. Edited November 18, 2014 by Scot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enemy 45 Posted November 18, 2014 Author Share Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) If he wasn't giving me his name and address, I'd arrest him too. When I arrest him I wouldn't recite an act (in Scotland it would be under common law), i'd say you're under arrest because you failed to supply your details. I'd place my hands on them when doing so. It's not petty, we're simply not going to allow people to walk off after committing an offence because they fail to give their details. Dream on and find somewhere else to spout your anti police rhetoric. It was that much of an offence that they released him an hour later without even taking him to the police station. That's the point. I was actually going to put "Note: This isn't a police-hating post." at the bottom of my original post but I didn't think anyone on here would be dim enough to think that that's what I was doing. I was wrong I guess. Edited November 18, 2014 by Duncan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot 703 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 It was that much of an offence that they released him an hour later without even taking him to the police station. That's the point. I was actually going to put "Note: This isn't a police-hating post." at the bottom of my original post but I didn't think anyone on here would be dim enough to think that that's what I was doing. I was wrong I guess. No, it came across anti police. Plus, is de-arrest, possibly once he provided details, not an option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav 167 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 It's simple isn't it, you don't go past a copper giving him the bird- you know the finger, yes we know the finger goose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enemy 45 Posted November 18, 2014 Author Share Posted November 18, 2014 No, it came across anti police. Plus, is de-arrest, possibly once he provided details, not an option? Yes, according the the man that was arrested the officer took his ID out of his pocket whilst in the back of the police van and the reason he was released was because the officer, apparently, couldn't be bothered to radio it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enemy 45 Posted November 18, 2014 Author Share Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) On another note. Does anyone know which law/act that giving the 'finger' would come under? Edited November 18, 2014 by Duncan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimjam651 32 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 On another note. Does anyone know which law/act that giving the 'finger' would come under? Congratulations on being the reason for my first post!! I would hazard a guess that he arrested for public order offences. In terms of arresting the chap, if someone refuses details once an offence is committed the neccessity test for arrest is complete. Yes the offence is minor but as a police officer you have to question why someone would refuse their details. what are they hiding? Plus I would suggest that anyone walking past a police car giving it the finger is looking for confrontation anyway! Regarding de-arresting the guy, if the police officer found the chaps ID and could confirm the details, in this situation the police officers neccessity for arrest has gone and he could deal with the offence using other means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot 703 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Yes, according the the man that was arrested the officer took his ID out of his pocket whilst in the back of the police van and the reason he was released was because the officer, apparently, couldn't be bothered to radio it in. so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav 167 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 So he was taught don't give us the bird and gob off or next time you'll be in the back of this for real init brov. Discretion after obtaining his details all well and good, but why stand there taking rubbish and have some plonker refuse details. They stopped rather than escalate it another level, so what's the issue now? Let's put it bluntly then we can all have a coffee, the guy's a tool, he got spoken to, if he gave his details in the first place there'd have been no issue, lesson is don't flick the bird at old bill and wind it in, job done. Right kettle, who's for a brew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus 585 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 I'd presume it's a Section 5 Public Order offence in England and Wales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav 167 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Along with the swearing it'd probably do as well as anything I've read ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enemy 45 Posted November 18, 2014 Author Share Posted November 18, 2014 so? What? I just find it hard to believe that if the arrested man was only doing it towards the police officer (and from video seemed as if the only people that were alarmed were the ones watching what the police were doing) that the officer could have been harassed, distressed or alarmed by it. Considering that it has been ruled that police officers can't be harassed, distressed or alarmed by being swore at, how can this be an arrestable offence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav 167 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Because Duncan you don't go around gobbing off at a Police officer. Ok breach of the peace for swearing, happy- probably not. Go to Germany, gob off there, get a kicking come back and learn to behave. If you or these little jokers want to mouth off in the street giving it 'go bang yourself brov init' and all that junk then someone's going to make something stick. When you're older and some chav comes sticking the finger up to you being a wally then after he's knocked you on your backside you'll probably want us to help you and nick the little sod. Go away, grow up and face that the police aren't here to put up with rubbish of mindless idiots swearing in the street giving it large. Bye brov! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot 703 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 What? I just find it hard to believe that if the arrested man was only doing it towards the police officer (and from video seemed as if the only people that were alarmed were the ones watching what the police were doing) that the officer could have been harassed, distressed or alarmed by it. Considering that it has been ruled that police officers can't be harassed, distressed or alarmed by being swore at, how can this be an arrestable offence? I am fairly sure from the video he's getting arrested for not providing his details, no matter what the initial offence is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now