The Right to Not Be Offended?

Burnsy2023 · 16 May 2012 at 16:28

The Halk said:
I think it's far too powerful for the police to have.

You trust the Police with people's liberity, to carry weapons and make big decisions every day. Do you think Police shouldn't be able to carry firearms? That's mighty powerful.

Greebo · 16 May 2012 at 16:28

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.

This x10. It works a lot better when a policeman can use descretion IMO rather than be rigid and have to arrest somebody and prosecute them.

paradisiac · 16 May 2012 at 16:29

The Halk said:
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.

so what english law could they use for foul and abusive language in public? i thought this came under section 5, and only section 5.
i dont think that many people will actually get prosecuted for a basic insult, its just all been taken out of context to make their side of the argument hold some water.

lurkio · 16 May 2012 at 16:30

Gilly said:
I disagree, dependant on context.

The Westboro Baptist Church should be criminal. Their type of protest should be criminal.

Iam sorry , I think these people are scum of the earth BUT ....

Freedom to speak out should be upheld

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

The Halk · 16 May 2012 at 16:30

I don't trust the police to carry firearms except for the specific units that are supposed to have them, I think the system we have in the UK is absolutely the right way to do things.

I trust the police to apply the law, and the law to protect people's liberty.

The Halk · 16 May 2012 at 16:33

paradisiac said:
so what english law could they use for foul and abusive language in public? i thought this came under section 5, and only section 5.
i dont think that many people will actually get prosecuted for a basic insult, its just all been taken out of context to make their side of the argument hold some water.

I do not know. I thought it was under Breach of the Peace, however it seems it's only in Scotland. I don't know if there's other laws in England that would cover it.

Section 5 amended as the campaign calls for would still cover foul and abusive language in public in circumstances where it was a problem.

Burnsy2023 · 16 May 2012 at 16:35

A point I've also missed that is rather important here: S5 has loads of case law to what is and is not acceptable. Just because you have a sign with insulting words isn't enough to complete the offence, you also need harassment, alarm or distress which a reasonable person test is applied to.

Just because someone is offended by something someone said doesn't mean S5 is applicable.

paradisiac · 16 May 2012 at 16:35

The Halk said:
I do not know. I thought it was under Breach of the Peace, however it seems it's only in Scotland. I don't know if there's other laws in England that would cover it.

Section 5 amended as the campaign calls for would still cover foul and abusive language in public in circumstances where it was a problem.

but at what point (if you took the polices discrecion away) would it be deemed 'a problem'? if 1 person complains, if 10 people complain, 100 people..... this is the problem. without discrection the laws would need to have soo many sections and subsections to cover every eventuallity.

The Halk · 16 May 2012 at 16:36

paradisiac said:
but at what point (if you took the polices discrecion away) would it be deemed 'a problem'? if 1 person complains, if 10 people complain, 100 people..... this is the problem. without discrection the laws would need to have soo many sections and subsections to cover every eventuallity.

I could have been clearer... section 5 without the word insulting could still be used for what in my opinion is a problem. The campaign isn't to get it changed to what is determined by the police to be a problem, it's to get the insult out of it.

paradisiac · 16 May 2012 at 16:41

The Halk said:
I could have been clearer... section 5 without the word insulting could still be used for what in my opinion is a problem. The campaign isn't to get it changed to what is determined by the police to be a problem, it's to get the insult out of it.

ok, yeh that does make a bit more sense. the word insult is very loose

in·sult/inˈsəlt/
Verb: Speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.
Noun: A disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action.
Synonyms:
verb. offend - affront - outrage - abuse - hurt - injure
noun. affront - offence - offense - outrage - abuse - indignity

that could mean pretty much anything, as everything has the potential to insult someone, somewhere.

realBabelfish · 16 May 2012 at 16:43

Burnsy2023 said:
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.

i think the thing is mate that a lot of your buddies dont seem as nice as you do (im not chatting you up but you seen like a decent bloke)

its things like setting up new road speed restrictions then having a cop car parked that night to catch people who didnt know it had changed... happened to me. i would have been 3mph over the old limit. it was 10:30pm at night yet i still end up getting points and a fine and for the next 5 years or so it pushes up my insurance too.

the thing is almost everyone i know has a story of police incompetence, harassment or brutality for no reason.

things like that need to be stamped out ASAP as it just makes many people hate the police. and i guess the majority of you are actually decent guys.

the problem is the bad apples seem to get covered up so that just emphasises the 'us and them' mentality a lot of younger people have.

realBabelfish · 16 May 2012 at 16:44

paradisiac said:
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.

nah. plenty of places around here have them and those roads dont have accidents on. i think many forces see it as a nice money maker.

Burnsy2023 · 16 May 2012 at 16:47

realBabelfish said:
i think the thing is mate that a lot of your buddies dont seem as nice as you do (im not chatting you up but you seen like a decent bloke)

The funny thing is, I have only met one officer who I had reservations about in that regard (there will always be one). The vast majority of officers that I've met are decent people who make decisions I support.

The Halk · 16 May 2012 at 16:49

Burnsy, do you feel the law would work if the word insult was taken from it? Would you still be able to police as effectively?

The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:
"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

RomanNose · 16 May 2012 at 16:50

Yes it should go.
What does insult actually mean? It's too subjective.

Haggisman · 16 May 2012 at 16:51

spudbynight said:
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?

That should be up to the neighbour in question. A caution (or whatever is done to 16 year olds for petty theft) might teach the little oik that actions have consequences.

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?

Of course you should. Otherwise you're setting a dangerous precedent by showing it's potentially ok to put other people's lives at risk if you have a relative in hospital.

paradisiac · 16 May 2012 at 16:52

realBabelfish said:
nah. plenty of places around here have them and those roads dont have accidents on. i think many forces see it as a nice money maker.

but do we know this one isnt

i agree there are a lot of pointless ones too, but the majority of them were installed for a reason.
the media, and anything else, can include only the bits of the story they feel portrays their side of the argument. if they decided on the day of writing that the papers would sell more if the police were involved in a scandel, then the story would be as such. if however recently a kid had been knocked down by an ambulance, then the story could have been more along the lines of 'ambulance caught doing 112mph at accident blackspot'. like i said, i wouldnt like to say 100% without knowing all the story, but you cant take everything you read to be accurate

on the whole the police do an excellent job, and like stated, dont want endless amounts of paperwork for the sake of it.
i have had my run ins with the police, and have been treated what i felt harsh, but they were ony doing there job and i hold no grudges.

andi · 16 May 2012 at 17:04

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.

That's actually a really good example of why discretion is a good thing! A camera has no discretion, if you exceed it's pre-programmed speed, you're prosecuted. A traffic officer with a speed gun does have discretion, and can consider the circumstances and use common sense to make a decision.

If he'd been caught by a real live policeman with the ability to use discretion, the result may (or may not) have been different.

Discretion is such a vital tool for a police officer.

Take s12 of the Licensing Act 1872 for example, if you take away discretion, that one would make custody busy on a Friday night, but it wouldn't do anything other than upset the public!

Burnsy2023 · 16 May 2012 at 17:10

The Halk said:
Burnsy, do you feel the law would work if the word insult was taken from it? Would you still be able to police as effectively?

I don't think it would have made a difference to any of my previous S5 arrests, but then I don't really see the case for getting rid of it either.

Haggisman said:
Of course you should. Otherwise you're setting a dangerous precedent by showing it's potentially ok to put other people's lives at risk if you have a relative in hospital.

Interesting. I may take the view that punishment wouldn't be useful as the person had extenuating circumstances to why they had a lapse in judgement. The words of advice may have had the same effect as an FPN.

andi said:
Take s12 of the Licensing Act 1872 for example, if you take away discretion, that one would make custody busy on a Friday night, but it wouldn't do anything other than upset the public!

I have wondered whether the custody skipper would authorize detention for that...

Haggisman · 16 May 2012 at 17:32

Burnsy2023 said:
Interesting. I may take the view that punishment wouldn't be useful as the person had extenuating circumstances to why they had a lapse in judgement. The words of advice may have had the same effect as an FPN.

"Extenuating circumstances" aren't going to be any consolation to the parent's of little Timmy crossing the road and getting hit by the speeding driver (/childkiller)

Obviously an extreme example, but I feel the punishment should be there as a deterrent to all but the most pressing of matters.

By all means speed like that if the situation is that urgent, but you should have weighed up all the options and be prepared for the punishment you deserve if caught.