I've just had the pleasure of watching the arrest of an overanker. What a pillock!
Rule number 1: Obey the law - don't block St. Andrews street for everyone else because you want to get on an already full taxi rank. Rule number 2: When a policeman politely but authoritatively asks you to move on don't move a few inches then stop, still blocking the road. Rule number 3: When the still calm policeman asks you your name don't refuse to tell him. Rule number 4: Don't keep refusing to tell him who you are and instead tell him to take your taxi number.
Technically the guy was not actually arrested for overanking but rather for refusing to give his details (having been asked many times). In reality of course the *reason* for his arrest was his inconsiderate and then downright aggressive attitude. I know that arrest is not the same as charge but the ride to the station in the back of a blue and white taxi along with the wasted afternoon and the associated loss of earnings might just have got the message across. On the other hand given his attitude maybe not. Shame it costs so much police time to do this though.
Overall I was very impressed with the actions of the policeman. He acted calmly and politely throughout, even though the taxi driver and his friends were becoming aggressive and unreasonable. At one point he was surrounded by a group of about 7 all shouting at him. Well done.
In article <84db66ff-1f91-4364-b0e0-69d93243a...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Calvin <csambr...@bigfoot.com> wrote: >I've just had the pleasure of watching the arrest of an overanker.
Fantastic.
>Overall I was very impressed with the actions of the policeman. He >acted calmly and politely throughout, even though the taxi driver and >his friends were becoming aggressive and unreasonable. At one point >he was surrounded by a group of about 7 all shouting at him. Well >done.
Can I suggest that you (if you haven't already done so) make yourself known to the police as a potential witness ? They may face some kind of complaint or contrived allegations, and an independent passerby's account may be very helpful to them.
-- Ian Jackson personal email: <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/ PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
> I've just had the pleasure of watching the arrest of an overanker. > What a pillock!
> Rule number 1: Obey the law - don't block St. Andrews street for > everyone else because you want to get on an already full taxi rank. > Rule number 2: When a policeman politely but authoritatively asks you > to move on don't move a few inches then stop, still blocking the road. > Rule number 3: When the still calm policeman asks you your name don't > refuse to tell him. > Rule number 4: Don't keep refusing to tell him who you are and instead > tell him to take your taxi number.
> Technically the guy was not actually arrested for overanking but > rather for refusing to give his details (having been asked many > times). In reality of course the *reason* for his arrest was his > inconsiderate and then downright aggressive attitude. > I know that arrest is not the same as charge but the ride to the > station in the back of a blue and white taxi along with the wasted > afternoon and the associated loss of earnings might just have got the > message across. On the other hand given his attitude maybe not. > Shame it costs so much police time to do this though.
> Overall I was very impressed with the actions of the policeman. He > acted calmly and politely throughout, even though the taxi driver and > his friends were becoming aggressive and unreasonable. At one point > he was surrounded by a group of about 7 all shouting at him. Well > done.
As I have said before I applaud action gainst the overranking, not only here but could do with some action at Station Road as well. However, I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence to refuse to give your details as yet in this situation, this will obviously change with I.D card introduction, as he was in a local authority licenced vehicle he only has to provide his licence number on his badge which also has his photo on it, so technically he had a point although yes, stupid to argue it considering the situation. 1 yes 2 yes 3 commeon sense not rule 4 no
In message <1LydnQ331u82ZF_UnZ2dnUVZ8oGWn...@posted.plusnet>, at 02:08:16 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Whatever <whate...@whatever.whatever> remarked:
> I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for >obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence to >refuse to give your details as yet in this situation,
Not giving your details after committing a traffic offence is surely a very old offence? -- Roland Perry
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes: > In message <1LydnQ331u82ZF_UnZ2dnUVZ8oGWn...@posted.plusnet>, at > 02:08:16 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Whatever <whate...@whatever.whatever> > remarked: >> I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for >> obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence >> to refuse to give your details as yet in this situation,
> Not giving your details after committing a traffic offence is surely a > very old offence?
Drivers of motor vehicles are required to provide details to the police on request whether or not they've committed any offence, Shirley?
On 20 Mar, 08:09, Paul Rudin <paul.nos...@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes: > > In message <1LydnQ331u82ZF_UnZ2dnUVZ8oGWn...@posted.plusnet>, at > > 02:08:16 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Whatever <whate...@whatever.whatever> > > remarked: > >> I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for > >> obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence > >> to refuse to give your details as yet in this situation,
> > Not giving your details after committing a traffic offence is surely a > > very old offence?
> Drivers of motor vehicles are required to provide details to the police > on request whether or not they've committed any offence, Shirley?
IANAL but I'm quite sure the policeman knows exactly what he can arrest for - it is one of his areas of professional expertise after all. Frankly I would have arrested him simply for being such a prat, but that's probably one reason I'm not a policeman!
> On 20 Mar, 08:09, Paul Rudin <paul.nos...@rudin.co.uk> wrote: >> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes: >> > In message <1LydnQ331u82ZF_UnZ2dnUVZ8oGWn...@posted.plusnet>, at >> > 02:08:16 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Whatever <whate...@whatever.whatever> >> > remarked: >> >> I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for >> >> obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence >> >> to refuse to give your details as yet in this situation,
>> > Not giving your details after committing a traffic offence is surely a >> > very old offence?
>> Drivers of motor vehicles are required to provide details to the police >> on request whether or not they've committed any offence, Shirley?
> IANAL but I'm quite sure the policeman knows exactly what he can > arrest for - it is one of his areas of professional expertise after > all. Frankly I would have arrested him simply for being such a prat, > but that's probably one reason I'm not a policeman!
lol good point well presented. :) As stated, not disputing being arrested merely the conjecture as to offence arrested for.
> In message <1LydnQ331u82ZF_UnZ2dnUVZ8oGWn...@posted.plusnet>, at 02:08:16 > on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Whatever <whate...@whatever.whatever> remarked: >> I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for >> obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence to >> refuse to give your details as yet in this situation,
> Not giving your details after committing a traffic offence is surely a > very old offence? > -- > Roland Perry
You can do better Roland, "in this situation" was the clue, he did not refuse to give details, he offered his number, this number is on his licence badge as is his name and photograph, together with the plate on his vehicle he would be more easily traced and or identity proven than you or I saying we are John Smith or whoever.... My point is simply that I hope it more likely he was arrested for the offence made, how many here joind no2id or do most belong to the naive 'nothing to hide' brigade?
>> In message <1LydnQ331u82ZF_UnZ2dnUVZ8oGWn...@posted.plusnet>, at >> 02:08:16 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Whatever <whate...@whatever.whatever> >> remarked: >>> I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for >>> obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence >>> to refuse to give your details as yet in this situation,
>> Not giving your details after committing a traffic offence is surely a >> very old offence?
> Drivers of motor vehicles are required to provide details to the police > on request whether or not they've committed any offence, Shirley?
"In this situation" he complied, the details offered should have been sufficient, not saying he should not have been arrested merely the assumed offence arrested for, in fact would you not rather it was for the offence itself? As I would have thought it more productive as a future warning both for himself and any other pillock overranking, than for any side issue in any case.
In article <1LydnQ331u82ZF_UnZ2dnUVZ8oGWn...@posted.plusnet>,
Whatever <whate...@whatever.whatever> wrote: >However, I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for >obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence to refuse >to give your details as yet in this situation,
In message <hJ6dnaf-O7eiFl7UnZ2dnUVZ8qCWn...@posted.plusnet>, at 12:29:27 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Whatever <whate...@whatever.whatever> remarked:
>You can do better Roland, "in this situation" was the clue, he did not >refuse to give details, he offered his number, this number is on his >licence badge as is his name and photograph, together with the plate on >his vehicle he would be more easily traced and or identity proven than >you or I saying we are John Smith or whoever....
Those details are for the benefit of the public, who have no powers to demand chapter and verse, and for whom going through the taxi licencing office is a useful additional weapon. I'm not the slightest bit surprised the police want the normal "name and address" and driving licence that they'd require of any other driver. -- Roland Perry
In message <UOWdnSsHxsdBFl7UnZ2dnUVZ8veWn...@posted.plusnet> "Whatever" <whate...@whatever.whatever> wrote:
> "Paul Rudin" <paul.nos...@rudin.co.uk> wrote in message > news:87wsakipj5.fsf@rudin.co.uk... [snip] > > Drivers of motor vehicles are required to provide details to the police > > on request whether or not they've committed any offence, Shirley?
> "In this situation" he complied, the details offered should have been > sufficient, not saying he should not have been arrested merely the > assumed offence arrested for, in fact would you not rather it was for > the offence itself? As I would have thought it more productive as a > future warning both for himself and any other pillock overranking, > than for any side issue in any case.
From the point of view of the police officer I'm sure the response that he would require first would be that of any other driver of a motor vehicle i.e. name and address, driving licence details and insurance (also if relevant MOT). For a driver in charge of a motor vehicle not to provide that information to a police officer on request is an automatic offence in itself.
Mike -- o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, "> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
In article <42aef763-ca44-4c05-97cd- 50119f60d...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, csambr...@bigfoot.com says...
> IANAL but I'm quite sure the policeman knows exactly what he can > arrest for - it is one of his areas of professional expertise after > all. Frankly I would have arrested him simply for being such a prat, > but that's probably one reason I'm not a policeman!
You have a touching faith in the average policeman's understanding of the law which has been anecdotally demonstrated on this newsgroup many times in the past.
-- Tony
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" George Bernard Shaw
> In article <42aef763-ca44-4c05-97cd- > 50119f60d...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, csambr...@bigfoot.com > says...
> > IANAL but I'm quite sure the policeman knows exactly what he can > > arrest for - it is one of his areas of professional expertise after > > all. Frankly I would have arrested him simply for being such a prat, > > but that's probably one reason I'm not a policeman!
> You have a touching faith in the average policeman's understanding of > the law which has been anecdotally demonstrated on this newsgroup many > times in the past.
> -- > Tony
> "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has > taken place" > George Bernard Shaw
You're right, I do.
In my experience policemen are professional in what they do. Like any professional they will sometimes make mistakes and like any human they will sometimes act inappropriately. I know I do - don't you? My "faith" lies in the fact that all policemen I've had contact with, both acting as policemen and socially, have appeared to me to be reasonable people trying to do a sometimes difficult job to the best of their ability. Of course that ability will vary between individuals but on a very basic point such as this I would certainly expect a trained professional to know the things for which they could or could not arrest.
I'm quite sure that in this particular case the policeman had a choice of reasons to arrest or could very easily have allowed the situation to develop to a point where an offence was committed if he had so wished. In my opinion he was very tolerant.
In message <3ee8f851-fd1f-46af-9111-e5a34f48b...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, at 07:21:29 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Calvin <csambr...@bigfoot.com> remarked:
>I'm quite sure that in this particular case the policeman had a choice >of reasons to arrest or could very easily have allowed the situation >to develop to a point where an offence was committed if he had so >wished.
Wasn't an offence committed when the taxi driver refused to give his name and address? -- Roland Perry
In article <1LydnQ331u82ZF_UnZ2dnUVZ8oGWn...@posted.plusnet>,
"Whatever" <whate...@whatever.whatever> wrote: > as far as I am aware it is not an offence to refuse > to give your details as yet in this situation, this will obviously change > with I.D card introduction, as he was in a local authority licenced vehicle > he only has to provide his licence number on his badge which also has his > photo on it, so technically he had a point
Interesting theory. Have you got any evidence that being in a 'local authority licenced vehicle' grants such a privilege? In any case, from the description of the event, it is more likely that he didn't offer to show his badge, as it would have his name on it, but pointed out the 'taxi number' on the vehicle, which wouldn't be sufficient as it doesn't prove who was operating the vehicle.
>>> In message <1LydnQ331u82ZF_UnZ2dnUVZ8oGWn...@posted.plusnet>, at >>> 02:08:16 on Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Whatever <whate...@whatever.whatever> >>> remarked: >>>> I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for >>>> obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence >>>> to refuse to give your details as yet in this situation,
>>> Not giving your details after committing a traffic offence is surely a >>> very old offence?
>> Drivers of motor vehicles are required to provide details to the police >> on request whether or not they've committed any offence, Shirley?
> "In this situation" he complied, the details offered should have been > sufficient, not saying he should not have been arrested merely the assumed > offence arrested for, in fact would you not rather it was for the offence > itself? As I would have thought it more productive as a future warning > both for himself and any other pillock overranking, than for any side > issue in any case.
I'd say the details offered were not sufficient, they merely confirm who should have been in the car. Of course, if you still have an old non-photo driving licence (as I do), I guess even that isn't sufficient to prove it's me.
-- Dave da v...@llondel.org (without the space) So many gadgets, so little time.
In article <2cbb003f50.mrc7offl...@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
m...@nospam.cam.ac.uk (Mike Clark) wrote: > From the point of view of the police officer I'm sure the response that > he would require first would be that of any other driver of a motor > vehicle i.e. name and address, driving licence details and insurance > (also if relevant MOT). For a driver in charge of a motor vehicle > not to provide that information to a police officer on request is an > automatic offence in itself.
Not quite. Some of those details (e.g. Driving Licence, insurance and MOT) can be produced later at a police station.
>> From the point of view of the police officer I'm sure the response that >> he would require first would be that of any other driver of a motor >> vehicle i.e. name and address, driving licence details and insurance >> (also if relevant MOT). For a driver in charge of a motor vehicle >> not to provide that information to a police officer on request is an >> automatic offence in itself.
> Not quite. Some of those details (e.g. Driving Licence, insurance and MOT) > can be produced later at a police station.
That's the statutory defence to the offence (i.e. they won't prosecute) - but you still commit an offence but not providing stuff in the first place.
> In article <2cbb003f50.mrc7offl...@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, > m...@nospam.cam.ac.uk (Mike Clark) wrote:
>> From the point of view of the police officer I'm sure the response that >> he would require first would be that of any other driver of a motor >> vehicle i.e. name and address, driving licence details and insurance >> (also if relevant MOT). For a driver in charge of a motor vehicle >> not to provide that information to a police officer on request is an >> automatic offence in itself.
> Not quite. Some of those details (e.g. Driving Licence, insurance and MOT) > can be produced later at a police station.
>> In article <2cbb003f50.mrc7offl...@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, >> m...@nospam.cam.ac.uk (Mike Clark) wrote:
>>> From the point of view of the police officer I'm sure the response that >>> he would require first would be that of any other driver of a motor >>> vehicle i.e. name and address, driving licence details and insurance >>> (also if relevant MOT). For a driver in charge of a motor vehicle >>> not to provide that information to a police officer on request is an >>> automatic offence in itself.
>> Not quite. Some of those details (e.g. Driving Licence, insurance and >> MOT) >> can be produced later at a police station.
> That's the statutory defence to the offence (i.e. they won't prosecute) > - but you still commit an offence but not providing stuff in the first > place.
Not normally an arrestable one though. Look, my point is not to defend this guy at all, I am equally happy as any here that he was taken away, my concern is over the assumption to the actual charge used.
> In article <42aef763-ca44-4c05-97cd- > 50119f60d...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, csambr...@bigfoot.com > says...
> > IANAL but I'm quite sure the policeman knows exactly what he can > > arrest for - it is one of his areas of professional expertise after > > all. Frankly I would have arrested him simply for being such a prat, > > but that's probably one reason I'm not a policeman!
> You have a touching faith in the average policeman's understanding of > the law which has been anecdotally demonstrated on this newsgroup many > times in the past.
> -- > Tony
> "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has > taken place" > George Bernard Shaw
You're right, I do.
In my experience policemen are professional in what they do. Like any professional they will sometimes make mistakes and like any human they will sometimes act inappropriately. I know I do - don't you? My "faith" lies in the fact that all policemen I've had contact with, both acting as policemen and socially, have appeared to me to be reasonable people trying to do a sometimes difficult job to the best of their ability. Of course that ability will vary between individuals but on a very basic point such as this I would certainly expect a trained professional to know the things for which they could or could not arrest.
I'm quite sure that in this particular case the policeman had a choice of reasons to arrest or could very easily have allowed the situation to develop to a point where an offence was committed if he had so wished. In my opinion he was very tolerant.
Exactly, he did, the obstruction caused would (and was) my guess, but some here seem to prefer it to be for failing to produce I.D. on demand instead of the act that, lets face it, is the reason people here are happy the guy was caught for and the very reason he was being asked in the first place.
> In article <1LydnQ331u82ZF_UnZ2dnUVZ8oGWn...@posted.plusnet>, > Whatever <whate...@whatever.whatever> wrote: >>However, I do hope you are wrong and that he was actually arressted for >>obstruction or similiar, as far as I am aware it is not an offence to >>refuse >>to give your details as yet in this situation,
What about them? He gave compliant details as was required of him as a licenced vehicle driver. More to the point then would be to ask how the police cleared the obstruction? As they are not licenced to drive a licenced hackney carriage did they get a lorry to take it, or tow it, or illegally drive it themselves? You see life does not allways mirror the black and white documents.
> >> From the point of view of the police officer I'm sure the response > >> that he would require first would be that of any other driver of a > >> motor vehicle i.e. name and address, driving licence details and > >> insurance (also if relevant MOT). For a driver in charge of a > >> motor vehicle not to provide that information to a police officer > >> on request is an automatic offence in itself.
> > Not quite. Some of those details (e.g. Driving Licence, insurance > > and MOT) can be produced later at a police station.
> That's the statutory defence to the offence (i.e. they won't prosecute) > - but you still commit an offence but not providing stuff in the first > place.
Are you saying you can be arrested for not producing those documents?
|
