It is not an offence to abuse police: Officers told not to arrest people who scream obscenities beca

reply to post by nerbot


You might get away with it in the UK but I really would't recommend it in the US. If your lucky you might get your teeth knocked out if your unlucky you will probably get shot. You can talk about all the legal jargon you want. Dead men tell no tales. If your simply battered they will make up so many charges on you one of them is bound to stick. All of this had been settled years ago and then came the Patriot Act and the new police state. With the attitude by the police and the courts shoot first don't bother to ask questions. I find it rather amusing that the US MSM is always showing examples around the world of totalitarian regimes mis-treating their own people. Where is the footage and the outcry by the News reporters here. Anderson Cooper was lucky in Egypt. What about his comrades here who got worse and get worse for doing nothing more that their jobs within the US.

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by grainofsand

I'd suggest it has to be a contributing factor as to why so many cops object to being filmed on camera, it sort of 'clips their wings' a bit.

Which is why it was made illegal and now they will arrest you for that too [...]

Only 'officially' under these circumstances though:

www.met.police.uk...

Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 covers the offence of eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of the armed forces, intelligence services or police where the information is, by its very nature, designed to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

I have never been detained under that section but I would assume a lot of people have, and then been released a few hours later 'with no further action', while many many more were lifted under the much simpler to 'prove' public order act.
Going back to the OP though, I'd be surprised if any guidelines/policy/law ever denied individual police officers some lame option for a cheap arrest if they want one.

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by grainofsand

I'd suggest it has to be a contributing factor as to why so many cops object to being filmed on camera, it sort of 'clips their wings' a bit.

Which is why it was made illegal and now they will arrest you for that too because they cant lie and make up evidence against you.

Not true. It isn't even remotely illegal to do such a thing and the Met and other Forces have no been correctly "advised" on the situation.

The only time the Police can even begin to question why you're taking pictures if if that area has been declared a special zone by the Commanding officer and this is time a limited thing, so cannot be indefinate.

Then, it is only illegal to take pictures of Military establishments, not the Police (which are not military but civilians) and even then, it is only an offence if those images are likely to be used in preparation for an act of terror.

reply to post by stumason


I know but they will still arrest you, take you to the station and mess you about and then release you without charge or they could just say youre a terrorist and charge you with something.

Its just the way they are.

They give section 27 notices to families enjoying a meal just because they dont like the football team they support and of course they were arresting people for just taking photos in the street.

They dont care about doing their job, its just an ego trip for them.

Originally posted by Flyer
I know but they will still arrest you, take you to the station and mess you about and then release you without charge or they could just say youre a terrorist and charge you with something.

No, they won't. As I said, since the few cases of them harrassing some journo's and tourists in London, they have been properly advised of the Law. They also can't just "make up" a terrorism charge and cart you off, not unless they want a crapstorm coming their way from your solicitor. Know your rights, not what they tell you are your rights, but that's a problem with most Joe Publics, they don't but then bleat when they feel slighted, whehn they could have avoided the whole mess by being educated.

Originally posted by Flyer
They give section 27 notices to families enjoying a meal just because they dont like the football team they support and of course they were arresting people for just taking photos in the street.

Please provide sources for this.

Originally posted by studio500 Beleive me it is not that difficult and up to you not them to prove that you didn't do what they said

.

Originally posted stumason Not true. The Police must prove you commited any offence and the onus is on them to prove you did it, not you to prove you didn't, although it would help your case if you could.

Sorry Stu but I think you have got the wrong end of my meaning there.

They Charge you with section 5, they give their evidence. If you cannot prove that you didn't swear you have no defence.
The officers statement is sufficient evidence and no further proof is ( Or was) required.

Originally posted by Senteri I have never been able to charge someone for yelling mean things at me. Why should police be any different?

Originally posted by stumason Actually, it is an offence under Law so you can make a complaint against a person for swearing at you, if it caused you offence, distress or harrassment. I doubt many people would go so far though.

Wrong again Stumanson, the Police will not take any action for someone swearing at you unless they are present at the scene and the offender ceases to stop swearing after being given a verbal warning to do so.


Back on track
This is not a new thing btw and it has always been the case that Police are deemed to have a more tolerance toward alarm harassment and distress.

The point of law however that it used all too often is the fictional person nearby who was within hearing distrance of the person swearing toward the officer.

Ie Sect 5 POA "Within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

This simply means if anyone else is present when an offender is swearing then they can be arrested. No statement is needed from the person likely to be caused distress which has led to abuse of the Public Order Act Powers by Police officers.

But the new guidance, issued to officers in London by the Civil Actions Unit of the Metropolitan Police, states that a prosecution for swearing will be lost without ‘compelling evidence of a person within sight or hearing likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress’. It adds that this is ‘very unlikely to be you [the police officer]’. Scotland Yard says the advice was issued because compensation had recently been paid out to ‘victims’ who had been ‘falsely’ arrested for swearing. A spokeswoman could not discuss the cases, so it is unclear whether the prosecutions were lost because the evidence given by the police was not trusted –or because bad language is now so prevalent that it was not deemed to be offensive. The distribution of the card is likely to prompt criticism that the ‘compensation culture’ and the fear of having to pay out damages for wrongful arrest is driving the rule change.

Daily Mail



Make no bones about it though, this is not a change in the law.

It is guidance that has been disseminated to officers with the blessing of the Chief constable.
The courts have obviously become wise at last and now want proof that another person was present when the offence was commited. Otherwise the floodgates open for many more compensation claims.

At present this guidance is not not nationwide so please think twice before going on a verbal rampage as you will still more than likely be arrested.

Originally posted by studio500
Sorry Stu but I think you have got the wrong end of my meaning there.

(Edited out as quote changed)

Originally posted by studio500
Wrong again Stumanson, the Police will not take any action for someone swearing at you unless they are present at the scene and the offender ceases to stop swearing after being given a verbal warning to do so.

It's an offence under the Public Order Act. If you make a complaint about someone using language likely to cause offence, harrassment or distress, the Police are obliged to investigate as any other crime.

Obviously, if they only have your word against the other party, then nothing is likely to happen. Video tape said abusive langauge and you are within your rights to request charges be pressed. The Police do not have to be present for a complaint to be valid. Using your logic, they wouldn't arrest anyone claiming they had been assaulted, because the Police hadn't witnessed it.

What you're thinking of is just a section 5, which i would agree with, but it's also an offence under Section 4 and 4A:

Section 4A makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of causing someone else harassment, alarm or distress. The offence is only committed if it has that effect.

Under section 4 it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of making someone else believe that immediate violence will be used against them or of provoking an immediate violent response. The offence is also committed if the effect of the person's language is that someone else will think that immediate violence will be used against them or a violent response provoked.

The maximum penalty for the offence under section 5 is a fine of £1,000, while someone could be sent to prison for up to six months or be fined up to £5,000 for the offences under sections 4 or 4A.

EDIT: I see you edited you post while I quoted you, making my reply a bit confused!

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Flyer
I know but they will still arrest you, take you to the station and mess you about and then release you without charge or they could just say youre a terrorist and charge you with something.

No, they won't. As I said, since the few cases of them harrassing some journo's and tourists in London, they have been properly advised of the Law. They also can't just "make up" a terrorism charge and cart you off, not unless they want a crapstorm coming their way from your solicitor. Know your rights, not what they tell you are your rights, but that's a problem with most Joe Publics, they don't but then bleat when they feel slighted, whehn they could have avoided the whole mess by being educated.

Originally posted by Flyer
They give section 27 notices to families enjoying a meal just because they dont like the football team they support and of course they were arresting people for just taking photos in the street.

Please provide sources for this.

You are both kind of right here.

It is not illegal to Photograph the Police Pe Se

The Mets Own advice

Freedom to photograph/film Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel. Terrorism Act 2000 Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 The power to stop and search someone under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 no longer exists. Police officers continue to have the power to stop and search anyone who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act.

Link

However many Police officers both in the Met and Nationwide are not aware of this and do think they they are able to arrest you and seize your equipment if you film or photograph them on duty.

There have been many reassurances to press agencies and individuals alike that officers have been updated regarding powers relating to photography but sadly there are still many officers who have not had this input.

This will most probably be the same case with the guidelines issued for section 5, in that most but not all officers will be aware of them due to annual leave, secondments, non proactive duty rosters etc etc.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by studio500
Sorry Stu but I think you have got the wrong end of my meaning there.

(Edited out as quote changed)

Originally posted by studio500
Wrong again Stumanson, the Police will not take any action for someone swearing at you unless they are present at the scene and the offender ceases to stop swearing after being given a verbal warning to do so.

It's an offence under the Public Order Act. If you make a complaint about someone using language likely to cause offence, harrassment or distress, the Police are obliged to investigate as any other crime.

Obviously, if they only have your word against the other party, then nothing is likely to happen. Video tape said abusive langauge and you are within your rights to request charges be pressed. The Police do not have to be present for a complaint to be valid. Using your logic, they wouldn't arrest anyone claiming they had been assaulted, because the Police hadn't witnessed it.

What you're thinking of is just a section 5, which i would agree with, but it's also an offence under Section 4 and 4A:

Section 4A makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of causing someone else harassment, alarm or distress. The offence is only committed if it has that effect.

Under section 4 it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of making someone else believe that immediate violence will be used against them or of provoking an immediate violent response. The offence is also committed if the effect of the person's language is that someone else will think that immediate violence will be used against them or a violent response provoked.

The maximum penalty for the offence under section 5 is a fine of £1,000, while someone could be sent to prison for up to six months or be fined up to £5,000 for the offences under sections 4 or 4A.

EDIT: I see you edited you post while I quoted you, making my reply a bit confused!

edit on 26/6/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)

Apologies for cocking up the quote Stumason my mistake.

Section 4 is a different matter and relates more to threats. Ie I'm going to kick your F ing head in" and the offender is in a position to do so and not standing across a river for example where he wouldn't be able to. Hence the phrasing in the act ..."that immediate violence will be used against them or a violent response provoked".
If the injured party believed that the offender was going to attack him then yes an arrest under sect 4 could be made even if police were present and at a later date.


This is very different from just swearing at someone.

Try making a complaint to Police the next time someone tells you to go forth and multiply. Your complaint will not be investigated unless an officer is present at the time of the offence.


The simple fact of the matter is that Section 5 PO has been used and evidently abused far to frequently by Police for too long.

The Police have targets, each individual officer has performance related targets that are reviewed monthly just like salesmen. They are never called targets but labelled as "Performance indicators".

If a frontline officer is deemed to be under performing the first thing that is looked at is arrest figures. One of the easiest ways to increase those figures is to arrest under sect 5 poa which is the main topic of this thread. (Not sect 4).


Some officers but by no means all will cruise the streets looking for people to "Wind Up". Groups of youths are a prime target". They will simply wind up and harass the youths untill one of them swears. They are supposed to give a warning but that doesn't always happen.
Once the suitably wound up person swears, he/she is arrested taken to the station and charged. Period.
There is no need for an interview with sect 5 public order.

If the case goes to court and that is currently a BIG IF, the officers evidence is all that is needed and they will insist that a warning was given.
If it doesn't go to court a caution will be given but only if the so called offender admits the offence.

This is an all too common and digusting behaviour that is routinely used by officers every day on the streets of England.
Innocent people who don't pass the "attitude test" are routinely abused in this way and end up with a conviction for doing nothing wrong.
The arrests are unlawful but what can the average person do? If he doesn't know the law and doesn't have a solicitor then probably nothing but accept the situation.

No wonder so many Police in the UK get such bad press and are hated and despised by the public.

I for one am very glad that this new guidance has been issued within the Met and I sincerely hope that it goes Nationwide.
The next step would be to remove sect 5 arrests from performance indicators but another way would soon be found to replace it.

Arresting people for using foul language at police is a bit of a stretch. If somebody cusses me out, I can't have them arrested. Why not simply compromise and make it a ticketable offense?