Radman + 2,165 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Wow these people are annoying, Realistic question now when would any of us here have considered dealing with the man for obstruction had you been in the PCSO's shoes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinxer 43 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 I have to agree with you they are really annoying, what harm are them 2 homeless guys doing. Surely being homeless isn't a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountyCop + 178 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 To be fair whilst he was annoying he wasn't really obstructing them as far as I could see. I'm guessing they have been tasked with a beggars complaint of some sort with the view to moving them along, again as far as I can see they have achieved that goal. The PCSOs handled the situation well, they didn't get caught up in any of that guys nonsense nor did they act unprofessionally. I think there are far worse people than that to deal with. The chap who was filming knew were to draw the line in my opinion, he was spouting off some stuff but did not physically prevent the guys from doing their job. My guess he was trying to bait the PCSOs, something which he failed to do. If I had to deal with the situation I would have acted in the same way the difference being that I would have activated my bodycam. If the bloke did physically stop me from speaking to the homeless (Vargrancy Act), then he can come in for obstruct PC and I imagine assault PC if it went that way. However if I did arrest him for the obstruct I would probably de arrest once he calmed down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powdermonkey 11 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 The PCSO's did reasonably well but weren't sure of what law they were using. It's the Vagrancy Act 1824 if the chaps were begging - I believe they need to have a sign out for that offence or to be witnessed asking for money etc to be completed. As far as I know being homeless isn't an offence and it'd be a stretch to use ASB law. Other than that, why did they bother engaging with the bloke filming them? It's nothing to do with him so just tell him that and then ignore him. If they decide to engage and he spouts off about common law and Acts of Parliament, tell him that courts treat them as equal. All that guff about Magna Carta these people come out with is selective and ignores legal history/developments since. If you get that stuff about being a "freeman" & not recognising or giving consent to the law, the simple answer is that consent is given by the majority via the ballot box. If they don't like that, they are free to go live somewhere else that doesn't practice democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powdermonkey 11 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Oh, and the PCSO was wrong to state PACE for requiring details, it's Schedule 4 of the Police Reform Act 2002 "power to require the name and address of a person whom a PCSO has reason to believe has committed a relevant offence or a relevant licensing offence". S.50 of the Act gives the same power but specifically for anti-social behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Culture + 407 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, powdermonkey said: The PCSO's did reasonably well but weren't sure of what law they were using. It's the Vagrancy Act 1824 if the chaps were begging - I believe they need to have a sign out for that offence or to be witnessed asking for money etc to be completed. As far as I know being homeless isn't an offence and it'd be a stretch to use ASB law. One of the PCSOs did mention the Vagrancy Act, but it was difficult to hear. I agree with @CountyCop - it doesn't seem that the cameraman actually managed to stop the PCSOs from doing what they intended to do, despite his best efforts. (That said, do you need to have "successfully" obstructed a police officer/PCSO in order to commit the S.89 Police Act offence?) As an aside - judging by the post-encounter chat with the person whose details had been taken, the cameraman ought to think about S.24 PACE a bit more carefully if he wishes to tout himself out as a legal representative. Edited May 13, 2016 by Smiley Culture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powdermonkey 11 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Smiley Culture I'm not sure. Obstruct PCSO comes under the Police Reform Act 2002 but I'm struggling to find the relevant section which I presume is in Schedule 4. S.89 Police Act 1986 only refers to constables. I suppose you have to successfully obstruct as I think you'd struggle to define an attempt to obstruct. As for the post encounter chat, apart from S.24a PACE, the camera man should think about S.5 POA 1986 as he was swearing that much 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Global Moderators MindTheGap 1,275 Posted May 13, 2016 Global Moderators Share Posted May 13, 2016 S46 of the PRA 2002 provides an offence to wilfully obstruct or resist any designated person acting in the lawful execution of their duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinxer 43 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Is sitting at the side of the road when homeless or even if you wasn't homeless actually against the Law. The freeman even though he was acting as if he was some sort of lawyer and didn't really know what he was on about didn't to me seem as he committed any crime apart from spouting his mouth off. I never heard him swearing when in earshot of the PCSO's and he was only swearing in conversation with the two guys at the end and wasn't directing his swearing at anyone. What reason gives the PCSO's the right to ask anyone to move along in the first place. I see nothing in the video that suggests the two homeless guys are doing anything wrong at all, so why speak to them in the first place. Are the PCSO's acting above any powers they think they might have in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinxer 43 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 35 minutes ago, MindTheGap said: S46 of the PRA 2002 provides an offence to wilfully obstruct or resist any designated person acting in the lawful execution of their duties. Would moving homeless people along be a lawful execution of a PCSO's duty. I'm not to sure what the Lawful duties of a PCSO is but if moving homeless people along isn't part of that remit would they themselves be open to breaking S46 of the PRA 2002 (3)Any person who, with intent to deceive— (a)impersonates a designated person [F4, an accredited person or an accredited inspector] , (b)makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is a designated person [F5, that he is an accredited person or that he is an accredited inspector] , or (c)makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he has powers as a designated or accredited person [F6or as an accredited inspector] that exceed the powers he actually has, is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Culture + 407 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Sitting at the side of the road isn't an offence unless you're obstructing the highway. However, sleeping rough and begging are both offences under the Vagrancy Act. I am guessing that in this video it's the latter that the person is being reported for. In addition, a BTP PCSO may ask somebody to leave railway premises if the person is suspected of loitering (which is not permitted under the railway byelaws). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinxer 43 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 I'm only going on what I can see and all I could see was a guy standing next to a wall with a blanket that was on the pavement. I realise anyone could ask the guy to leave but when the PCSO's start quoting whatever acts they were quoting are they not then acting outside of there scope and then deceiving the guy and breaking S46 of the PRA 2002 which I have shown above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radman + 2,165 Posted May 13, 2016 Author Share Posted May 13, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, Jinxer said: Is sitting at the side of the road when homeless or even if you wasn't homeless actually against the Law. The freeman even though he was acting as if he was some sort of lawyer and didn't really know what he was on about didn't to me seem as he committed any crime apart from spouting his mouth off. I never heard him swearing when in earshot of the PCSO's and he was only swearing in conversation with the two guys at the end and wasn't directing his swearing at anyone. What reason gives the PCSO's the right to ask anyone to move along in the first place. I see nothing in the video that suggests the two homeless guys are doing anything wrong at all, so why speak to them in the first place. Are the PCSO's acting above any powers they think they might have in this case. Begging is against the law Jinxer but if the roadway belongs to the railway (which it may well do) then railway Byelaws come in to play such a loitering, unacceptable behaviour etc which gives BTP PCSOs the power to remove and report persons for summons for breaching these offences on rail property. Begging blights an area and frankly almost all of the beggars I have dealt with over the years have homes, have tax payer supported income, are in reciept of benefits etc it is just an easy way to make money tax free very quickly (some commuters are happy to hand over £10 a time.) BTP PCSOs are not your standard HO variety that you find knocking about, they certainly have more bite to them. Edited May 14, 2016 by Radman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce 0 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 PCSO's did ok but they need to know their law better when dealing with incidents. Knowledge is power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddzz!! + 149 Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Is that his heart I can hear racing away? Stupid bloke had no idea what he's talking about... Apparently we get money for arresting people?! First I've heard! 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