The Right to Not Be Offended?

andi said:
I would suggest there was probably more to those stories than is being told, I can't imagine the bloke was just wandering down the road woofing at passing dogs when the police appeared and locked him up, for example.
Click to expand...

no, he could have been a large chap, covered in tattoos that looked menacing. or maybe they were a known trouble maker. there could be many reasons, but at the end of the day, its up to the attending officer to decide, and the guy then has a right to appeal. the police can only work with whats presented to them when they arrive on scene to make their decision.
 
Andy said:
People need to stop being so soft.
Click to expand...

Got to agree with this point really.

It may be a cliche, but the saying "offense is never given, only taken" really holds true here.

To use this as an example:

Castiel said:
So I assume the OP thinks it is acceptable to go up to any random Black person and call them a ******?.
Click to expand...

Well if black people didn't get offended by being called a ****** then there wouldn't be any point in people doing it would there? :)

Using the example of the Westboro Baptist Church - these entities thrive on the controversy, drama and publicity they cause, if everyone just ignored them and went about their business as usual they would very quickly realise they weren't achieving anything.

Burnsy2023 said:
Also note that prosecutions in the majority of the examples on the website weren't taken forward and indeed in some cases the Police force admitted they acted wrongly.
Click to expand...

And that makes the several thousand pounds wasted in each example ok? The situations shouldn't even have occurred.

paradisiac said:
no, he could have been a large chap, covered in tattoos that looked menacing.
Click to expand...

So now you're saying it's ok to arrest people based on their appearance? :confused:
 
Last edited:
andi said:
I would suggest there was probably more to those stories than is being told, I can't imagine the bloke was just wandering down the road woofing at passing dogs when the police appeared and locked him up, for example.
Click to expand...

I would bet money on it.

paradisiac said:
isnt section 5 there more to give the police some power IF there is a need to take action, rather than something the police activily go around trying to enforce, such as the do with burglaries etc.
Click to expand...

That's how I see it.

andi said:
Broad laws are good, they allow officers to use descretion and common sense in their application.

If s5 was as terrible as that website makes out, you'd have heard about it way before now.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it's from 1986 for god sake, it's hardly new stuff. Indeed, it's marginally older than I am.
 
The Halk said:
I'd say they were bad for the same reasons... I don't want police officers using their discretion in applying the law.
Click to expand...

Really? I'll give you an FPN every time I see you going 1mph over the speed limit then. Hell, should I'll report you every time so you need to see the magistrate?
 
Last edited:
Burnsy2023 said:
Really? I'll give you an FPN every time I see you going 1mph over the speed limit then.
Click to expand...

But that is already covered by police guidelines is it not. My understanding is that police are told to only issue FPNs if the driver was going 10% + 2mph over the limit. So 34 fine, 36 FPN; 79mph fine, 81mph = FPN etc.

Disscretionary Guidelines != A policeman's discretion.
 
The Halk said:
I'd say they were bad for the same reasons... I don't want police officers using their discretion in applying the law.
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more on that one!

Discretion is the difference between blindly following a rulebook and actually solving problems. Remove discretion from an officer and he or she will not be able to operate, the system will crumble.
 
The Halk said:
I'd say they were bad for the same reasons... I don't want police officers using their discretion in applying the law.
Click to expand...

No? What about for example a 16 year old boy in spotted in his neighbours garden (trespass) and pinching an apple from a tree (theft).

Do you think the 16 year old boy should be hauled off down to the police station for the CPS to prosecute?

A police officer has to use his/her discretion every day. If they didn't we would all be criminals.
 
estebanrey said:
But that is already covered by police guidelines is it not. My understanding is that police are told to only issue FPNs if the driver was going 10% + 2mph over the limit. So 34 fine, 36 FPN; 79mph fine, 81mph = FPN etc.

Disscretionary Guidelines != A policeman's discretion.
Click to expand...

What about if you're doing 50mph in a 30, but after talking to you and see that you're rushing to the hospital because your daughter was in an RTA I decide to let you on your way. Should I still fine you or report you to court as that's what the guidelines say?
 
Burnsy2023 said:
What about if you're doing 50mph in a 30, but after talking to you and see that you're rushing to the hospital because your daughter was in an RTA I decide to let you on your way. Should I still fine you or report you to court as that's what the guidelines say?
Click to expand...

Arrows
 
Burnsy2023 said:
So you would tolerate poppy burning as a protest?
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less what an ignorant minority of people choose to do - they have no understanding of the values they are supposedly upholding let alone any understanding of the poppies and their symbolism.

I wouldn't be adverse to seeing them getting a kicking for it either - but it's not worth getting worked up about - they're just idiots who are incapable of having their own thoughts and ideas - I pity them more than anything, particularly as I'm swigging from a beer, smashing my other half's unmarried pasty and looking forward to my post coital bacon sandwich ;)
 
andi said:
Couldn't disagree more on that one!

Discretion is the difference between blindly following a rulebook and actually solving problems. Remove discretion from an officer and he or she will not be able to operate, the system will crumble.
Click to expand...

There are pluses and negative to both systems though. Give a copper full discretion and how he will apply the law will be affected by the kind of day he's having, any prejudices he may hold etc. No discretion and all you have is pedantic policing where people are being arrested for victimless misdemeanours.

The amount of discretion they have needs to be balanced and be specific for each type of offence. Let's not forget the whole point of a policeman is that he is not there to judge you (that's the court's job), when you give them too much discrestion that's kind of what your asking them to do.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
What about if you're doing 50mph in a 30, but after talking to you and see that you're rushing to the hospital because your daughter was in an RTA I decide to let you on your way. Should I still fine you or report you to court as that's what the guidelines say?
Click to expand...

Well this is the problem with discretion. You are implying that you wouldn't give a ticket out in that situation but....

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transp...ver-threatened-with-speeding-ticket-1-1794141

..and the police did not back down over it either The guy ended up paying and taking the points.

So whilst you are trying to show the positives of police discretion, you've actually also shown the very problem with it too.
 
estebanrey said:
Well this is the problem with discretion. You are implying that you wouldn't give a ticket out in that situation but....

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transp...ver-threatened-with-speeding-ticket-1-1794141

..and the police did not back down over it either The guy ended up paying and taking the points.

So whilst you are trying to show the positives of police discretion, you've actually also shown the very problem with it too.
Click to expand...

So you've highlighted one time when it hasn't worked, but what about all the times it has that you're not aware of? The system isn't perfect but it works well, most of the time.
 
estebanrey said:
Well this is the problem with discretion. You are implying that you wouldn't give a ticket out in that situation but....

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transp...ver-threatened-with-speeding-ticket-1-1794141

..and the police did not back down over it either The guy ended up paying and taking the points.

So whilst you are trying to show the positives of police discretion, you've actually also shown the very problem with it too.
Click to expand...

but are cameras not normally in accident black spots, therefore they could be deemed as driving reclessly at that speed. it doesnt matter how much training said driver had, if it was at a junction that is know for having poor visability, then it is reckless, simple as. without knowing everything about this incident it would be hard to make an informal decision.
whereas an officer pulling someone over will have a better understanding of their driving standard and have the chance to assess it more.
 
Funny we're talking about free speech, a mod has just closed the 'Got to catch them all' thread when it became clear people were using it to air greviences about the moderation :D

There's no such thing as FOS on a forum (that goes for all forums btw), if what you could and couldn't say was dictated like it is on forums like these it would be like living in North Korea :D
 
I think it's far too powerful for the police to have. An insult being illegal is not right - even if the majority of the police in the majority of times are smart enough not to apply it, it still exists and any police officer could use it when they don't have another law to use.

David Davis's 3 minute YouTube clip I linked at the very start of it puts it into proper context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom