Police Vs Cyclist

Cornucopia

Iceweasel wrote: »

'Can of Worms' doesn't even begin to describe these type of confrontational problems.

Isn't the reality though, that it is ultimately caused by Governments bringing in non-Court fines, non-Police authorities and widening the scope of them to things that many members of the public would regard as being minor misdemeanours?

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

That's all very well, but figures of authority apparently making stuff up gives rise to exactly this sort of unnecessary confrontation. I don't think that the Police should find it remotely challenging to be asked, and they should be able to confidently state the Act and the Section that they are presently relying on.

All of which is not helped by the relatively rapid increase in the overall amount of legislation out there.

In the context of that video yes, as it would appear to be either part of his core role or something he set out to do that day.

But being expected to know every act and section is unrealistic. If you had to know the law to that extent how long would it take to train them? Law students don't know everything after four years at uni.

matttye

RS2000. wrote: »

Well if you're being pedantic about it it was neve as simple as that was it?

Serious arrestable, arrestable, summary and offences with a conditional power of arrest was the context I used summary only offences in.

You'll know quite well that when Section 39 Assaults became recordable crimes and dealt with by the police there was no power of arrest.

Sorry, misunderstood and thought you were talking about the position nowadays.

Serious arrestable and arrestable offences were before my time.

RS2000.

matttye wrote: »

Sorry, misunderstood and thought you were talking about the position nowadays.

Serious arrestable and arrestable offences were before my time.

Summary offences were and still aren't arrestable. What you should have said given the right circumstances you can arrest someone who commits summary offence.

Your attention to detail with regards to the law isn't what is should be for someone paid to advise at a police station.

Moto2

RS2000. wrote: »

But being expected to know every act and section is unrealistic. If you had to know the law to that extent how long would it take to train them? Law students don't know everything after four years at uni.

I don't think it's unrealistic to expect them to know the various details of common offences and powers, more obscure ones sure but the basic stuff should be bread and butter to them.
I suspect that it actually is with a lot of them, just not this one.

RS2000.

Moto2 wrote: »

I don't think it's unrealistic to expect them to know the various details of common offences and powers, more obscure ones sure but the basic stuff should be bread and butter to them.
I suspect that it actually is with a lot of them, just not this one.

Which is what I said but for some reason you decided to omit the part where I basically said they should know their job.

Cornucopia

RS2000. wrote: »

But being expected to know every act and section is unrealistic. If you had to know the law to that extent how long would it take to train them? Law students don't know everything after four years at uni.

I actually meant something slightly different to that. What I meant was that when a Police officer instructs a member of the public to do something, it should not cause them any great difficulty if they occasionally get asked "under what Law?".

I appreciate that for some members of the public (i.e. followers of the Freeman on the Land wibble) that still might not be the end of the matter, but it's a start.

matttye

RS2000. wrote: »

Summary offences were and still aren't arrestable. What you should have said given the right circumstances you can arrest someone who commits summary offence.

Your attention to detail with regards to the law isn't what is should be for someone paid to advise at a police station.

That's a different way of saying the same thing. The police have to have reasonable grounds to arrest and it has to be necessary to arrest for any offence, unless a warrant has been issued by the court.

You have no idea what you're talking about and you're also very rude, so I'm not going to waste any more time on you. Goodbye.

RS2000.

matttye wrote: »

That's a different way of saying the same thing. The police have to have reasonable grounds to arrest and it has to be necessary to arrest for any offence, unless a warrant has been issued by the court.

You have no idea what you're talking about and you're also very rude, so I'm not going to waste any more time on you. Goodbye.

It never had to be necessary to arrest, hence arrestable offences.

matttye wrote: »

Summary only offences are still arrestable. summary only simply means that the case will be dealt with in the magistrates court. It affects certain police powers as well eg s.18 searches.

Pity the person who puts their hope in you to help them at a police station.

Why they ever let legal advisors attend instead of qualified solicitors is beyond me. Oh yes not being a solicitor saves the firm money.

Still if you !!!! up your firm still earns at court, non of it is about actually protecting your clients rights is it?

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

I actually meant something slightly different to that. What I meant was that when a Police officer instructs a member of the public to do something, it should not cause them any great difficulty if they occasionally get asked "under what Law?".

I appreciate that for some members of the public (i.e. followers of the Freeman on the Land wibble) that still might not be the end of the matter, but it's a start.

You've done the same as moto there.